Cervical Degenerative Disc DiseaseNCT05522010
Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion(ACDF) For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD): An RCT
A study testing Cervical spine surgery in people with Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, run by Assiut University.
Trial summary
TO Compare The Clinical And Radiographic Outcomes of DCI VS ACDF For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
- What is being tested?
- Cervical spine surgery
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 25 Aug 2022to 1 Aug 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Single or multiple symptomatic cervical DDD with radiculopathy and\or mylopathy not responding to non-surgical management
- Age older than 18 years
Who cannot join
- ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament
- facet arthritis
- lack of motion or instability at the level of surgery
- fracture
- infection
- tumors
- osteoprosis
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
TO Compare The Clinical And Radiographic Outcomes of DCI VS ACDF For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD)
Read the detailed description
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective and safe treatment for patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, in the untreated levels adjacent to a fusion, increased motion and elevated intradiscal pressures have been reported. Some investigators have postulated that these changes may lead to an increased risk of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Limitations and problems with ACDF have led some investigators to explore the motion-preserving surgeries, such as cervical total disk replacement (TDR). Although TDR has been shown to reduce adjacent-level intra discal pressures and provide a more physiological overall cervical but also index- and adjacent-level range of motion (ROM) while maintaining sagittal alignment. Recent studies have also highlighted the potential limitations of TDR. Dynamic cervical implant (DCI) is a type of anterior decompression and cervical non-fusion implant that was initially conceived as a method to combine the potential advantages of fusion and TDR. The DCI is intended to provide controlled, limited flexion and extension-the primary motions in the sub axial cervical spine-that is greater than that seen with fusion, but less than that achieved with TDR .
- Conditions
- Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
- Being tested
- Cervical spine surgery
- Keywords
- Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, Dynamic Cervical Implant, Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cervical spine surgeryProcedure or surgery
A standard anterior approach was made with discectomy sparing the cartilage, and with foraminal decompression. Complete excision of the posterior longitudinal ligament was routinely performed to complete neural decompression. Trial inserters were used to identify the proper implant size. Device under sizing may lead to poor fixation and implant migration. The largest possible device that can be safely placed should be selected to maximize device- endplate contact and to gain support from the apophyseal rim. The teeth of the implant were optimally fixated to the endplate via Caspar pin compression following device insertion. The device may be replaced or changed using the same insertion instrument if final imaging demonstrated suboptimal positioning. Rinsing the implanted disc space removes rests of blood and bone dust, all potentially promoting HO
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group (1) (ACDF) | Active comparator | All patients on this group will undergo Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion Receives: Procedure: Cervical spine surgery |
| Group (2) (DCI) | Active comparator | All patients on this group will undergo Dynamic Cervical Implant Receives: Procedure: Cervical spine surgery |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Radiological outcome
MRI grading for the degree of ASD (Mario Matsumato grading)
Measured: At 1 year follow up.
Secondary outcomes (5)
Clinical outcome
1-Neck Disability Index (NDI) : 10 item score from 0 to 5 maximum score is 50 , high score is worse
Measured: At 3 month .
Radiological outcome (Plain x-ray)
1- Cervical sagittal alignment C2 to C7 (Cobb angle)
5-implant fusion described as a less than 1-mm motion between the tips of the spinous processes in dynamic radiographs and/or the presence of bridging bony trabeculae.
Measured: at 6 month.
Radiological outcome (MSCT)
1-implant fusion
Measured: At 1 year .
clinical outcome
Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm from 0 to 10 score , the higher score is worse
Measured: At 3 month .
radiological outcome
2- Range of motion (ROM) using Cobb method for cervical spine and functional spine unit of treated segment
Measured: at 6 month .
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Aug 2022
- Study start25 Aug 2022 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Aug 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Aug 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cervical Degenerative Disc DiseaseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Assiut UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- A calculated minimum sample of 50 patients with single or multiple symptomatic cervical DDD with radiculopathy and\\or myelopathy not responding to non-surgical management will be needed. The sample will be randomly assigned for one of two equal groups (Group I (n=25); will undergo ACDF and Group II (n=25) will undergo DCI to detect an effect size of 0.42 in the rate of adjacent segment degeneration (main clinical and radiological outcomes), with an error probability of 0.05 and 80%
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assiut University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mahmoud Abdelrahman Saleh El Attar, Assiut University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05522010
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Cervical Degenerative Disease
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 19 Aug 2022
- Last updated
- 30 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Irwin ZN, Hilibrand A, Gustavel M, McLain R, Shaffer W, Myers M, Glaser J, Hart RA. Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part II: cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2214-9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000181056.76595.f7.
PubMed 16205349Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Wilber RG, Davy DT. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 1;23(15):1649-56. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199808010-00006.
PubMed 9704371Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jul 15;22(14):1574-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199707150-00009.
PubMed 9253091Shao MM, Chen CH, Lin ZK, Wang XY, Huang QS, Chi YL, Wu AM. Comparison of the more than 5-year clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Dec;95(51):e5733. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005733.
PubMed 28002345Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Jan;18(1):36-42. doi: 10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12555. Epub 2012 Nov 9.
PubMed 23140129Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):985-997. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5. Epub 2016 Jun 17.
PubMed 27314663Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, Copay AG, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jun;26(6):653-667. doi: 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16264. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
PubMed 28304237Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Aug;25(2):213-24. doi: 10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824. Epub 2016 Mar 25.
PubMed 27015130Wu TK, Wang BY, Meng Y, Ding C, Yang Y, Lou JG, Liu H. Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(16):e6503. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006503.
PubMed 28422837Lu VM, Zhang L, Scherman DB, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017 Feb;26(2):546-557. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4791-y. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
PubMed 27679431Kelly MP, Eliasberg CD, Riley MS, Ajiboye RM, SooHoo NF. Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases. Eur Spine J. 2018 Jun;27(6):1432-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5570-8. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
PubMed 29605899Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Feb;4(2):98-105. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98.
PubMed 16506475Li Z, Yu S, Zhao Y, Hou S, Fu Q, Li F, Hou T, Zhong H. Clinical and radiologic comparison of dynamic cervical implant arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Jun;21(6):942-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.09.007. Epub 2013 Nov 4.
PubMed 24411326Wang L, Song YM, Liu LM, Liu H, Li T. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dynamic cervical implant replacement for treatment of single-level degenerative cervical disc disease: a 24-month follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2014 Aug;23(8):1680-7. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3180-7. Epub 2014 Jan 29.
PubMed 24474644
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion(ACDF) For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD): An RCT
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05522010
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Cervical Degenerative Disease
- Conditions
- Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
- Keywords
- Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, Dynamic Cervical Implant, Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Assiut UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 25 Aug 2022 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Aug 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Aug 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 30 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
TO Compare The Clinical And Radiographic Outcomes of DCI VS ACDF For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD)
Detailed description
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective and safe treatment for patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, in the untreated levels adjacent to a fusion, increased motion and elevated intradiscal pressures have been reported. Some investigators have postulated that these changes may lead to an increased risk of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Limitations and problems with ACDF have led some investigators to explore the motion-preserving surgeries, such as cervical total disk replacement (TDR). Although TDR has been shown to reduce adjacent-level intra discal pressures and provide a more physiological overall cervical but also index- and adjacent-level range of motion (ROM) while maintaining sagittal alignment. Recent studies have also highlighted the potential limitations of TDR. Dynamic cervical implant (DCI) is a type of anterior decompression and cervical non-fusion implant that was initially conceived as a method to combine the potential advantages of fusion and TDR. The DCI is intended to provide controlled, limited flexion and extension-the primary motions in the sub axial cervical spine-that is greater than that seen with fusion, but less than that achieved with TDR .
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- A calculated minimum sample of 50 patients with single or multiple symptomatic cervical DDD with radiculopathy and\or myelopathy not responding to non-surgical management will be needed. The sample will be randomly assigned for one of two equal groups (Group I (n=25); will undergo ACDF and Group II (n=25) will undergo DCI to detect an effect size of 0.42 in the rate of adjacent segment degeneration (main clinical and radiological outcomes), with an error probability of 0.05 and 80%
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group (1) (ACDF) | Active comparator | Procedure: Cervical spine surgeryAll patients on this group will undergo Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion |
| Group (2) (DCI) | Active comparator | Procedure: Cervical spine surgeryAll patients on this group will undergo Dynamic Cervical Implant |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Single or multiple symptomatic cervical DDD with radiculopathy and\or mylopathy not responding to non-surgical management
- Age older than 18 years
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament
- facet arthritis
- lack of motion or instability at the level of surgery
- fracture
- infection
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Cervical spine surgeryA standard anterior approach was made with discectomy sparing the cartilage, and with foraminal decompression. Complete excision of the posterior longitudinal ligament was routinely performed to complete neural decompression. Trial inserters were used to identify the proper implant size. Device under sizing may lead to poor fixation and implant migration. The largest possible device that can be safely placed should be selected to maximize device- endplate contact and to gain support from the apophyseal rim. The teeth of the implant were optimally fixated to the endplate via Caspar pin compression following device insertion. The device may be replaced or changed using the same insertion instrument if final imaging demonstrated suboptimal positioning. Rinsing the implanted disc space removes rests of blood and bone dust, all potentially promoting HO | Procedure or surgery | Group (1) (ACDF), Group (2) (DCI) |
Primary outcome
Radiological outcome
Time frame: At 1 year follow up.
MRI grading for the degree of ASD (Mario Matsumato grading)
5 secondary outcomes
Clinical outcome
Time frame: At 3 month .
Radiological outcome (Plain x-ray)
Time frame: at 6 month.
Radiological outcome (MSCT)
Time frame: At 1 year .
clinical outcome
Time frame: At 3 month .
radiological outcome
Time frame: at 6 month .
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Aug 2022.
- Background: PubMed 16205349Irwin ZN, Hilibrand A, Gustavel M, McLain R, Shaffer W, Myers M, Glaser J, Hart RA. Variation in surgical decision making for degenerative spinal disorders. Part II: cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2214-9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000181056.76595.f7.
- Background: PubMed 9704371Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE, Wilber RG, Davy DT. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Aug 1;23(15):1649-56. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199808010-00006.
- Background: PubMed 9253091Hilibrand AS, Yoo JU, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH. The success of anterior cervical arthrodesis adjacent to a previous fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Jul 15;22(14):1574-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199707150-00009.
- Background: PubMed 28002345Shao MM, Chen CH, Lin ZK, Wang XY, Huang QS, Chi YL, Wu AM. Comparison of the more than 5-year clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Dec;95(51):e5733. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005733.
- Background: PubMed 23140129Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, Boltes MO, Nussbaum M, James S. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Jan;18(1):36-42. doi: 10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12555. Epub 2012 Nov 9.
- Background: PubMed 27314663Zou S, Gao J, Xu B, Lu X, Han Y, Meng H. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) for two contiguous levels cervical disc degenerative disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):985-997. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4655-5. Epub 2016 Jun 17.
- Background: PubMed 28304237Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, Copay AG, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Jun;26(6):653-667. doi: 10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16264. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
- Background: PubMed 27015130Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Aug;25(2):213-24. doi: 10.3171/2015.12.SPINE15824. Epub 2016 Mar 25.
- Background: PubMed 28422837Wu TK, Wang BY, Meng Y, Ding C, Yang Y, Lou JG, Liu H. Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(16):e6503. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006503.
- Background: PubMed 27679431Lu VM, Zhang L, Scherman DB, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. Treating multi-level cervical disc disease with hybrid surgery compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017 Feb;26(2):546-557. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4791-y. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
- Background: PubMed 29605899Kelly MP, Eliasberg CD, Riley MS, Ajiboye RM, SooHoo NF. Reoperation and complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc arthroplasty: a study of 52,395 cases. Eur Spine J. 2018 Jun;27(6):1432-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5570-8. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
- Background: PubMed 16506475Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, Duggal N. Complications with cervical arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Feb;4(2):98-105. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.98.
Related trials for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
Active, not recruiting
The Synergy Disc for the Treatment of 2 Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Compared With Cervical Fusion Surgery
Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease
Enrolling by invitation
Assessing Microbiome in Primary Anterior Cervical Fusion Patients
Cervical Stenosis, Myelopathy
Active, not recruiting
Anterior Cervical Disectomy And Fusion Using The Tritanium® C Anterior Cervical Cage For One Or Two-Levels
Cervical Disc Herniation, Cervical Disc Degeneration
RecruitingObservational study
PMCF Study Fortilink-SC
Degenerative Disc Disease in Cervical Spine, Stenosis Cervical Spine
Enrolling by invitation
Physiotherapy and Osteopathic Treatment for Pain in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine and Temporomandibular Joints
Disc Degenerative Disease, Spine Degeneration
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Cervical spine surgery in people with Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease, run by Assiut University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Mahmoud Saleh El Attar, Master (01014919050, attar@med.aun.edu.eg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Radiological outcome (time frame: At 1 year follow up.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05522010, which also lists 14 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Aug 2022.