FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2775289907> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2775289907 endingPage "31" @default.
• W2775289907 startingPage "31" @default.
• W2775289907 abstract "<h3>Background</h3> Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is an increasingly accepted procedure for the treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. Multiple Level I evidence clinical trials have established cervical TDR to be a safe and effective procedure in the short-term. The objective of this study is to provide a long-term assessment of TDR versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of one- and two-level disc disease. <h3>Methods</h3> This study was a continuation of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, US FDA IDE clinical trial comparing cervical TDR with the Mobi-C^© Cervical Disc versus ACDF through 7 years follow-up. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease at one or two cervical levels. TDR patients were treated using a Mobi-C^© artificial disc (Zimmer Biomet, Austin TX, USA). ACDF with allograft and anterior plate was used as a control treatment. Outcome measures were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, at 3, 6, 12, 18 months, annually through 60 months, and at 84 months. Measured outcomes included Overall success, Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS neck and arm pain, segmental range of motion (ROM), patient satisfaction, SF-12 MCS/PCS, major complications, and subsequent surgery rate. The primary endpoint was an FDA composite definition of success comprising clinical improvement and an absence of major complications and secondary surgery events. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 599 patients were enrolled and treated, with 164 treated with one-level TDR, 225 treated with two-level TDR, 81 treated with one-level ACDF, and 105 treated with two-level ACDF. At seven years, follow-up rates ranged from 73.5% to 84.4% (overall 80.2%). The overall success rates of two level TDR and ACDF patients were 60.8% and 34.2%, respectively (p<0.0001). The overall success rates of one level TDR and ACDF patients were 55.2% and 50%, respectively (p>0.05). Both the single and two level TDR and ACDF groups showed significant improvement from baseline NDI scores, VAS neck and arm pain scores, and SF-12 MCS/PCS scores (p<0.0001). In the single level cohort, there was an increased percentage of TDR patients who reported themselves as “very satisfied” (TDR 90.9% vs ACDF 77.8%; p= 0.028). There was a lower rate of adjacent level secondary surgery in the single level TDR patients (3.7%) versus the ACDF patients (13.6%; p = 0.007). In the two level TDR group, the NDI success rate was significantly greater in the TDR group (TDR: 79.0% vs. ACDF: 58.0%; p=0.001). There was significantly more improvement in NDI change score at 7 years in the TDR patients versus ACDF. The TDR group had a significantly higher rate of patients who were “very satisfied” with their treatment compared to the ACDF group (TDR: 85.9% vs. ACDF: 73.9%). The rate of subsequent surgery at the index level was significantly lower in the TDR group compared to the ACDF group (TDR: 4.4% vs. ACDF: 16.2%; p=0.001). The rate of adjacent level secondary surgery was significantly lower in the two level TDR (4.4%) patients compared to the ACDF (11.3%; p=0.03) patients. In both single and two level cohorts, the percentage of patients with worse NDI (2.5%-3.8% of two level surgeries and 1.2%-2.5% of single level surgeries) or worse neck pain (5%-6.8% of the two level surgeries and 1.3% - 3.8% of the single level surgeries) was strikingly low in both groups but trended lower in the TDR patients. <h3>Conclusions</h3> At seven years, the composite success analysis demonstrated clinical superiority of two level TDR over ACDF and non-inferiority of single level TDR versus ACDF. There were lower rates of secondary surgery and higher adjacent level disc survivorship in both groups. Both surgeries were remarkably effective in alleviating pain relative to baseline and the rate of patients with worse disability or neck pain was surprisingly low. Overall, greater than 95% of patients (from both groups) who underwent TDR and 88% of patients who underwent ACDF were “very satisfied” at seven years. The differences in clinical effectiveness of TDR versus ACDF becomes more apparent as treatment increases from one to two levels, indicating a significant benefit for TDR over ACDF for two-level procedures. <h3>Ethical Standards</h3> The Mobi-C Clinical Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00389597) was conducted at 24 sites in the US and was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee, or local equivalent of each participating site. <h3>Level of Evidence</h3> 1." @default.
• W2775289907 created "2017-12-22" @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5002944764 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5006845391 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5011224388 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5011646164 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5041876583 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5043354290 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5051480984 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5051920050 @default.
• W2775289907 creator A5076342250 @default.
• W2775289907 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W2775289907 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2775289907 title "Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up" @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1185878319 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1488157144 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1851599154 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1913824058 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1967057044 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1975674888 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1976954554 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1984961993 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1988341110 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1996022106 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1997458448 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W1997726963 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2008194916 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2010921855 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2015762089 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2020930993 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2027320595 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2029221685 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2035780773 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2043211638 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2052854874 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2055978168 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2059593578 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2059977682 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2063587527 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2066665758 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2071614348 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2083467844 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2094090328 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2096805167 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2101545850 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2109534964 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2124246278 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2127426207 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2142472354 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2155539779 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2157467746 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2165124683 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2211345472 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2235646531 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2263147210 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2333532224 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2339239953 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2384202814 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2410030714 @default.
• W2775289907 cites W2513941603 @default.
• W2775289907 doi "https://doi.org/10.14444/4031" @default.
• W2775289907 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5779239" @default.
• W2775289907 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29372135" @default.
• W2775289907 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2775289907 type Work @default.
• W2775289907 sameAs 2775289907 @default.
• W2775289907 citedByCount "113" @default.
• W2775289907 countsByYear W27752899072018 @default.
• W2775289907 countsByYear W27752899072019 @default.
• W2775289907 countsByYear W27752899072020 @default.
• W2775289907 countsByYear W27752899072021 @default.
• W2775289907 countsByYear W27752899072022 @default.
• W2775289907 countsByYear W27752899072023 @default.
• W2775289907 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5002944764 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5006845391 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5011224388 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5011646164 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5041876583 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5043354290 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5051480984 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5051920050 @default.
• W2775289907 hasAuthorship W2775289907A5076342250 @default.
• W2775289907 hasBestOaLocation W27752899071 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C14184104 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C188816634 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C203092338 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C2775944032 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C2778051963 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C2778620186 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C2779951463 @default.
• W2775289907 hasConcept C2781038967 @default.

• next