Thomas P. Loumeau MD, Bruce V. Darden MD, Thomas J. Kesman MD, Susan M. Odum PhD, Bryce A. Van Doren MPA, MPH, Eric B. Laxer MD, Daniel B. Murrey MD, MPP

June 2016, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 2263 - 2270 Original Article Read Full Article 10.1007/s00586-016-4431-6

First Online: 11 February 2016


The objective of this trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of TDA using the ProDisc-C implant to ACDF in patients with single-level SCDD between C3 and C7.


We report on the single-site results from a larger multicenter trial of 13 sites using an approved US Food and Drug Administration protocol (prospective, randomized controlled non-inferiority design). Patients were randomized one-to-one to either the ProDisc-C device or ACDF. All enrollees were evaluated pre- and post-operatively at regular intervals through month 84. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain/intensity, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and satisfaction were assessed.


Twenty-two patients were randomized to each arm of the study. Nineteen additional patients received the ProDisc-C via continued access. NDI improved with the ProDisc-C more than with ACDF. Total range of motion was maintained with the ProDisc-C, but diminished with ACDF. Neck and arm pain improved more in the ProDisc-C than ACDF group. Patient satisfaction remained higher in the ProDisc-C group at 7 years. SF-36 scores were higher in the TDA group than ACDF group at 7 years; the difference was not clinically significant. Six additional operations (two at the same level; four at an adjacent level) were performed in the ACDF, but none in the ProDisc-C group.


The ProDisc-C implant appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of SCDD. Patients with the implant retained motion at the involved segment and had a lower reoperation rate than those with an ACDF.

Read Full Article