Skip to:

Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients

Rick B. Delamarter, MD,1 Daniel Murrey, MD,2 Michael E. Janssen, DO,3 Jeffrey A. Goldstein, MD,4 Jack Zigler, MD,5 Bobby K.-B. Tay, MD,6 Bruce Darden II, MD2

1The Spine Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 2OrthoCarolina, PA, OrthoCarolina Spine Center, Charlotte, NC 3Center for Spinal Disorders, Thornton, CO 4New York University/Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY 5Texas Back Institute, Plano, TX 6Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA



Cervical total disk replacement (TDR) is intended to address pain and preserve motion between vertebral bodies in patients with symptomatic cervical disk disease. Two-year follow-up for the ProDisc-C (Synthes USA Products, LLC, West Chester, Pennsylvania) TDR clinical trial showed non-inferiority versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), showing superiority in many clinical outcomes. We present the 4-year interim follow-up results.


Patients were randomized (1:1) to ProDisc-C (PDC-R) or ACDF. Patients were assessed preoperatively, and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months. After the randomized portion, continued access (CA) patients also underwent ProDisc-C implantation, with follow-up visits up to 24 months. Evaluations included Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain/satisfaction, and radiographic and physical/neurologic examinations.


Randomized patients (103 PDC-R and 106 ACDF) and 136 CA patients were treated at 13 sites. VAS pain and NDI score improvements from baseline were significant for all patients (P < .0001) but did not differ among groups. VAS satisfaction was higher at all time points for PDC-R versus ACDF patients (P = .0499 at 48 months). The percentage of patients who responded yes to surgery again was 85.6% at 24 months and 88.9% at 48 months in the PDC-R group, 80.9% at 24 months and 81.0% at 48 months in the ACDF group, and 86.3% at 24 months in the CA group. Five PDC-R patients (48 months) and no CA patients (24 months) had index-level bridging bone. By 48 months, approximately 4-fold more ACDF patients required secondary surgery (3 of 103 PDC-R patients [2.9%] vs 12 of 106 ACDF patients [11.3%], P = .0292). Of these, 6 ACDF patients (5.6%) required procedures at adjacent levels. Three CA patients required secondary procedures (24 months).


Our 4-year data support that ProDisc-C TDR and ACDF are viable surgical options for symptomatic cervical disk disease. Although ACDF patients may be at higher risk for additional surgical intervention, patients in both groups show good clinical results at longer-term follow-up.

cervical arthroplasty, Symptomatic cervical disc disease, total disc replacement
Volume 4 Issue 4