Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this clinical trial is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc as a method of treating patients with symptoms of cervical degenerative disc disease at a single level from C3-C4 to C6-C7.
This pivotal clinical trial was conducted to compare treatment data of the investigational implant device,the PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc, with a control patient group receiving a plate. The PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc devices were implanted using an anterior surgical approach. Data from control patients receiving anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with an ATLANTIS Anterior Cervical Plate from the initial Artificial Cervical Disc study (NCT00642876) were compared as both treatment groups receive single-level surgical treatment from C3-C4 to C6-C7 for symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investigational | Experimental | PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc |
|
| Control | Active Comparator | Control patients who received a ACDF fusion treatment from a previous IDE trial (NCT00642876) |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc | Device | The PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc was inserted into the intervertebral disc space of the cervical spine using the anterior surgical approach. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Rate of Overall Success | Rate of overall success is reported as the percentage of participants who met all of the following criteria:
| 24 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Success Rate of Neck Disability Index | Success rate of Neck Disability Index is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck disability index score met: Pre-treatment Score - Post-treatment Score ≥ 15. | 24 months |
| Success Rate of Neurological Status |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Any other cervical spinal condition requiring surgical treatment at the involved level
Documented or diagnosed cervical instability defined by radiographs showing
More than one cervical level requiring surgery
A fused level adjacent to the level to be treated
Severe pathology of the facet joint of involved bodies
Previous surgery at the involved level
Previously diagnosed osteopenia or osteomalacia
Any of the following that may be associated with an osteoporosis diagnosis (if "Yes" to any of these, a DEXA Scan will be required to determine eligibility)
If the level of Bone Mineral Density is a T score of -3.5 or lower or a T score of -2.5 or lower with the vertebral crush fracture, then the patient is excluded.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emory Orthopaedics and Spine Center | Atlanta | Georgia | 30329 | United States | ||
| The Hughston Clinic, P.C. |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31970051 | Derived | Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, Schranck FW, Copay AG. One-Level Versus 2-Level Treatment With Cervical Disc Arthroplasty or Fusion: Outcomes Up to 7 Years. Int J Spine Surg. 2019 Dec 31;13(6):551-560. doi: 10.14444/6076. eCollection 2019 Dec. | |
| 31075769 | Derived | Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Schranck FW, Copay AG. Cervical disc arthroplasty: 10-year outcomes of the Prestige LP cervical disc at a single level. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 May 10;31(3):317-325. doi: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE1956. Print 2019 Sep 1. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Investigational | PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc |
| FG001 | Control | Control patients who received ACDF fusion treatment from a previous IDE trial (NCT00642876) |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| ATLANTIS Anterior Cervical Plate | Device | Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with ATLANTIS plate for control group |
|
|
Success rate of neurological status is reported as the percentage of participants who met neurological success defined as maintenance or improvement in all sections (motor, sensory, and reflexes) for the time period evaluated. In order for a section to be considered a success, each element in the section must remain the same or improve from the time of the preoperative evaluation to the time period evaluated. |
| 24 months |
| Rate of Disc Height Success | Disc height was assessed by determining the Functional Spinal Unit (FSU) height. The rate of disc height success is reported as the percentage of participants whose disc height for each level based on either the anterior or posterior measurements met the following criterion: Postoperative Height - 6 Week Postoperative Height >= -2mm | 24 months |
| Neck Pain Success Rate | Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 100 max) was derived by multiplying the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Neck pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck pain improvement met: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0. | 24 months |
| Arm Pain Success Rate | Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 100 max) was derived by multiplying the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Arm pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose arm pain improvement met: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0. | 24 months |
| Success Rate of SF-36 PCS | Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 PCS was defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 PCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 PCS. | 24 months |
| Success Rate of SF-36 MCS | Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 MCS were defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 MCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 MCS. | 24 months |
| Gait Success Rate | Patient's gait was assessed by using Nurick's classification, and indicated either as normal or graded on a scale of 0 to 5. Success was defined as maintenance or improvement in the postoperative status as compared to the preoperative condition: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score >= 0. The gait success rate is reported as the percentage of participants who had gait success. | 24 months |
| Operative Time | Operative time was recorded from skin incision to wound closure. | Time of operation, approximately 1.5 hrs. |
| Blood Loss | During the time of operation, approximately 1.5 hours. |
| Hospital Stay | During the time of hospital stay, average of 1 day. |
| Rate of Secondary Surgery at Index Level | Secondary surgical procedures at the index level included revisions, removals, supplemental fixations and reoperations. Rate of secondary surgery at index level is reported as percentage of patients who had secondary surgeries at index level. | 24 months post-operation |
| Change of Neck Disability Index Score From Baseline | The self-administered Neck Disability Index (NDI) Questionnaire was used to assess patient neck pain and ability to function. The NDI scale ranges from 0-100. The best score is 0 (no disability) and worst is 100 (maximum disability). Change of NDI was defined as NDI at 24 month minus NDI at baseline. | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
| Change of Neck Pain Score From Baseline | Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate neck pain intensity and frequency. Patients rated their neck pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, patients recorded their neck pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total neck pain score (0 to100) was the product of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of neck pain score was defined as neck pain score at 24 months minus neck pain score at baseline. | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
| Change of Arm Pain Score From Baseline | Numerical rating scales were also used to evaluate arm pain intensity and frequency. Patients rated their arm pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, patients recorded their arm pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total arm pain score (0 to 100) was the product of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of arm pain score was defined as arm pain score at 24 months minus arm pain score at baseline. | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
| Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 PCS From Baseline | The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for PCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 PCS score was defined as PCS score at 24 months minus PCS score at baseline. | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
| Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 MCS From Baseline | The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for MCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 MCS score was defined as MCS score at 24 months minus MCS score at baseline. | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
| Columbus |
| Georgia |
| 31908 |
| United States |
| Coeur d'Alene Spine and Brain, PLLC | Coeur d'Alene | Idaho | 83814 | United States |
| Central Illinois Neuroscience | Bloomington | Illinois | 61701 | United States |
| Indiana Spine | Carmel | Indiana | 46032 | United States |
| OrthoIndy | Indianapolis | Indiana | 46260 | United States |
| Cedar Neurological Surgeons, PC | Cedar Rapids | Iowa | 52403 | United States |
| Sports Medicine North | Peabody | Massachusetts | 01960 | United States |
| The Orthopaedic Center of St. Louis | Chesterfield | Missouri | 63017 | United States |
| Springfield Neurological Institute | Springfield | Missouri | 65804 | United States |
| Buffalo Neurosurgery Group | West Seneca | New York | 14224 | United States |
| NeuroSpine Institute, LLC | Eugene | Oregon | 97401 | United States |
| Clinical Trials for South Carolina | Charleston | South Carolina | 29406 | United States |
| Chattanooga Orthopaedic Group | Chattanooga | Tennessee | 37404 | United States |
| Brain and Spine Center of Texas, L.L.P. | Plano | Texas | 75093 | United States |
| University of Virginia,Neurosurgery Department | Charlottesville | Virginia | 22908 | United States |
| 27441182 | Derived | Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr. Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Prestige LP Disc Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Seven-Year Outcomes. Int J Spine Surg. 2016 Jun 22;10:24. doi: 10.14444/3024. eCollection 2016. |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Investigational | PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc |
| BG001 | Control | Control patients who received ACDF fusion treatment from a previous IDE trial (NCT00642876). |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
| |||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Height | Mean | Standard Deviation | in. |
| |||||||||||||||
| Weight | Mean | Standard Deviation | lbs. |
| |||||||||||||||
| Marital Status | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Education Level | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Worker's Compensation Case | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Unresolved Spinal Litigation | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Tobacco Used | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Alcohol Used | Number | participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Preop Work Status | Number | participants |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Rate of Overall Success | Rate of overall success is reported as the percentage of participants who met all of the following criteria:
| The primary analysis dataset for this study consists of all subjects who received study devices and completed the initial surgical procedures. The analysis was based on the observed data and missing data due to lost-to-follow-ups were imputed. For the primary endpoint, the analysis consists of 226 investigational subjects and 171 control subjects. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Success Rate of Neck Disability Index | Success rate of Neck Disability Index is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck disability index score met: Pre-treatment Score - Post-treatment Score ≥ 15. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable NDI success status at 24 months, which leads to 270 subjects in the investigational group and 219 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Success Rate of Neurological Status | Success rate of neurological status is reported as the percentage of participants who met neurological success defined as maintenance or improvement in all sections (motor, sensory, and reflexes) for the time period evaluated. In order for a section to be considered a success, each element in the section must remain the same or improve from the time of the preoperative evaluation to the time period evaluated. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable neurological success status at 24 months, which leads to 270 subjects in the investigational group and 220 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Rate of Disc Height Success | Disc height was assessed by determining the Functional Spinal Unit (FSU) height. The rate of disc height success is reported as the percentage of participants whose disc height for each level based on either the anterior or posterior measurements met the following criterion: Postoperative Height - 6 Week Postoperative Height >= -2mm | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable disc height success (FSU success) status at 24 months, which leads to 224 subjects in the investigational group and 164 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Neck Pain Success Rate | Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 100 max) was derived by multiplying the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Neck pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose neck pain improvement met: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable neck pain success status at 24 months, which leads to 270 subjects in the investigational group and 219 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Arm Pain Success Rate | Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate pain intensity and frequency. The pain score (0 min, 100 max) was derived by multiplying the numerical rating scores from the pain intensity (0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be.") and frequency scales (0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time"). Arm pain success rate is reported as the percentage of participants whose arm pain improvement met: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score > 0. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable arm pain success status at 24 months, which leads to 268 subjects in the investigational group and 219 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Success Rate of SF-36 PCS | Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 PCS was defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 PCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 PCS. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable SF-36 PCS success status at 24 months, which leads to 264 subjects in the investigational group and 216 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Success Rate of SF-36 MCS | Success rate of SF-36 Health Survey include two components: the success rate of a physical component summary (PCS) and the success rate of a mental component summary (MCS). The success of SF-36 MCS were defined as: Post Score - Pre Score >= 0. The Success rate of SF-36 MCS is reported as the percentage of the participants who were classified as a success for SF-36 MCS. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable SF-36 MCS success status at 24 months, which leads to 264 subjects in the investigational group and 216 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Gait Success Rate | Patient's gait was assessed by using Nurick's classification, and indicated either as normal or graded on a scale of 0 to 5. Success was defined as maintenance or improvement in the postoperative status as compared to the preoperative condition: Preoperative Score - Postoperative Score >= 0. The gait success rate is reported as the percentage of participants who had gait success. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable gait success status at 24 months, which leads to 270 subjects in the investigational group and 220 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Operative Time | Operative time was recorded from skin incision to wound closure. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable information for operative time, which leads to 280 subjects in the investigational group and 265 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | hrs | Time of operation, approximately 1.5 hrs. |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Blood Loss | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable information for blood loss, which leads to 278 subjects in the investigational group and 263 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | ml | During the time of operation, approximately 1.5 hours. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Hospital Stay | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable information for hospital stay, which leads to 280 subjects in the investigational group and 265 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | days | During the time of hospital stay, average of 1 day. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Rate of Secondary Surgery at Index Level | Secondary surgical procedures at the index level included revisions, removals, supplemental fixations and reoperations. Rate of secondary surgery at index level is reported as percentage of patients who had secondary surgeries at index level. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of all subjects in the primary analysis dataset with 280 subjects in the investigational control and 265 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 24 months post-operation |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change of Neck Disability Index Score From Baseline | The self-administered Neck Disability Index (NDI) Questionnaire was used to assess patient neck pain and ability to function. The NDI scale ranges from 0-100. The best score is 0 (no disability) and worst is 100 (maximum disability). Change of NDI was defined as NDI at 24 month minus NDI at baseline. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable NDI score at both baseline and 24 months, which leads to 270 subjects in the investigational group and 219 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change of Neck Pain Score From Baseline | Numerical rating scales were used to evaluate neck pain intensity and frequency. Patients rated their neck pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, patients recorded their neck pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total neck pain score (0 to100) was the product of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of neck pain score was defined as neck pain score at 24 months minus neck pain score at baseline. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable neck pain score at both baseline and 24 months, which leads to 270 subjects in the investigational group and 219 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change of Arm Pain Score From Baseline | Numerical rating scales were also used to evaluate arm pain intensity and frequency. Patients rated their arm pain intensity on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 representing "no pain" and a score of 10 representing "pain as bad as it could be." Similarly, patients recorded their arm pain frequency on a scale from 0-10, with a score of 0 being "pain none of the time" and a score of 10 being "pain all of the time." The total arm pain score (0 to 100) was the product of pain intensity and frequency scores. Change of arm pain score was defined as arm pain score at 24 months minus arm pain score at baseline. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable arm pain score at both baseline and 24 months, which leads to 268 subjects in the investigational group and 219 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 PCS From Baseline | The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for PCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 PCS score was defined as PCS score at 24 months minus PCS score at baseline. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable PCS score at both baseline and 24 months, which leads to 264 subjects in the investigational group and 216 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change of General Health Status -- SF-36 MCS From Baseline | The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess general health status. The SF-36 results were summarized into two components, a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). The score for MCS was between 0 and 100, with higher scores denoting better quality of life. Change of SF-36 MCS score was defined as MCS score at 24 months minus MCS score at baseline. | For this endpoint, the analysis consists of subjects in the primary analysis dataset with evaluable MCS score at both baseline and 24 months, which leads to 264 subjects in the investigational group and 216 subjects in the control group. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | Baseline and 24 months post-operation |
|
|
up to 24 months
The adverse events, originally collected in FDA proposed categories, were grouped into organ systems.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Investigational | PRESTIGE® LP Cervical Disc | 133 | 280 | 242 | 280 | ||
| EG001 | Control | Control patients who received ACDF fusion treatment from a previous IDE trial (NCT00642876). | 98 | 265 | 211 | 265 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Cardiac Disorders | Cardiac disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Dysphagia/Dysphonia | Gastrointestinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Gastrointestinal | Gastrointestinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Infection | Infections and infestations | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Neurological | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Respiratory | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Trauma | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Urogenital | Renal and urinary disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Vascular | Vascular disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Wound (Non-Infectious) | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Dysphagia/Dysphonia | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Heterotopic Ossification | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Implant Events | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Neck and/or Arm Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Non-Union | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Spinal Events | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Spinal Events | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Spinal Events | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Congenital, familial and genetic disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Ear and labyrinth disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Eye disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Immune system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Investigations | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Psychiatric disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Surgical and medical procedures | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Vascular disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Ear and labyrinth disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Eye disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anatomical/technical difficulty | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Cancer | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Cardiac Disorders | Cardiac disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Dysphagia/Dysphonia | Gastrointestinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Dysphagia/Dysphonia | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Dysphagia/Dysphonia | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Gastrointestinal | Gastrointestinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Heterotopic Ossification | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Implant Events | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Infection | Infections and infestations | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Neck and/or Arm Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Neurological | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Non-Union | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Congenital, familial and genetic disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Ear and labyrinth disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Endocrine disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Eye disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Gastrointestinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Immune system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Infections and infestations | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Investigations | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Psychiatric disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Renal and urinary disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Reproductive system and breast disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Social circumstances | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Surgical and medical procedures | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other | Vascular disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Ear and labyrinth disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Eye disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Other Pain | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Respiratory | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Spinal Events | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Spinal Events | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Spinal Events | Nervous system disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Trauma | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Urogenital | Renal and urinary disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Vascular | Vascular disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| ||
| Wound(Non-Infectious) | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Department | Medtronic Spinal | 1800-876-3133 | 6068 | msbkclinicalresearch@medtronic.com |
| Male |
|
| Black |
|
| Asian |
|
| Hispanic |
|
| Other |
|
| Married |
|
| Divorced |
|
| Separated |
|
| Widowed |
|
| High School |
|
| > High School |
|
| Unknown |
|
| No |
|
| No |
|
| No |
|
| No |
|
| No |
|
The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI. |
| Non-Inferiority or Equivalence (legacy) |
The non-inferiority margin is 0.1. |
| Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made. | Bayesian logistic model | The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization. | 0.736 | The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value. | 95 | Superiority or Other (legacy) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Participants |
|
|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|