NCT03312192

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results between two different techniques for ACDF: 1. Stand-alone ACDF, which means the placement of an interbody device (cage) without anterior fixation or plating; 2. ACDF with and interbody cage and anterior plating for fixation. Both of these procedures are commonly performed at Rush with unclear advantage of one procedure over the other. Both have been associated with good to excellent clinical outcomes. The devices used in this study are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Trial Health

30
At Risk

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Trial has exceeded expected completion date
Timeline
Completed

Started Jul 2017

Longer than P75 for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
withdrawn

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

July 17, 2017

Completed
22 days until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

August 8, 2017

Completed
2 months until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

October 17, 2017

Completed
3.2 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

December 31, 2020

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

December 31, 2020

Completed
Last Updated

September 16, 2021

Status Verified

September 1, 2021

Enrollment Period

3.5 years

First QC Date

August 8, 2017

Last Update Submit

September 8, 2021

Conditions

Keywords

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and FusionStand-Alone CageAnterior Plating

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Clinical Improvement - Change in Baseline Visual analogue Score (VAS) for Pain

    Patients will be asked to complete the VAS to measure their pain prior to surgery and at their preoperative office visit(s) or just prior to surgery in the preoperative waiting area. Scores at the 6 month follow up office visit will be compared to baseline

    6 months

Secondary Outcomes (4)

  • Dysphagia

    6 months

  • Fusion Rates

    6 months

  • Clinical Improvement - Change in baseline 12-item Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey at 6 months

    6 months

  • Clinical Improvement - Change in baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 6 months

    6 months

Other Outcomes (2)

  • Adverse Events

    1 year

  • Narcotics Consumption

    3 days

Study Arms (2)

Plate and Cage

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

ACDF with interbody cage and anterior plating.

Device: Interbody Cage and Anterior Plating

Stand Alone Cage

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

ACDF with stand alone interbody cage without anterior plating

Device: Interbody Cage

Interventions

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with interbody cage placement

Stand Alone Cage

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with interbody cage placement and anterior plating

Plate and Cage

Eligibility Criteria

Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Patients undergoing a primary 1- to 2-level ACDF
  • (a) Diagnosis: myelopathy, radiculopathy, myeloradiculopathy, stenosis, herniated nucleus pulposus, degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, osteophytic complexes, and foraminal stenosis
  • Patients able to provide informed consent

You may not qualify if:

  • Cervical spine trauma

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Rush University Medical Center

Chicago, Illinois, 60612, United States

Location

Related Publications (9)

  • Ji GY, Oh CH, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN, Yoon DH, Yudoyono F. Stand-alone Cervical Cages Versus Anterior Cervical Plates in 2-Level Cervical Anterior Interbody Fusion Patients: Analysis of Adjacent Segment Degeneration. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Aug;28(7):E433-8. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a355ad.

    PMID: 23897053BACKGROUND
  • Choi KC, Ryu KS, Lee SH, Kim YH, Lee SJ, Park CK. Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation -- a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jul 26;14:220. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-220.

    PMID: 23890389BACKGROUND
  • Oh JK, Kim TY, Lee HS, You NK, Choi GH, Yi S, Ha Y, Kim KN, Yoon DH, Shin HC. Stand-alone cervical cages versus anterior cervical plate in 2-level cervical anterior interbody fusion patients: clinical outcomes and radiologic changes. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 Dec;26(8):415-20. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31824c7d22.

    PMID: 22367466BACKGROUND
  • Lee MJ, Dettori JR, Standaert CJ, Ely CG, Chapman JR. Indication for spinal fusion and the risk of adjacent segment pathology: does reason for fusion affect risk? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Oct 15;37(22 Suppl):S40-51. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826ca9b1.

    PMID: 22872219BACKGROUND
  • Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6 Suppl):190S-194S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007.

    PMID: 15541666BACKGROUND
  • Cho SK, Riew KD. Adjacent segment disease following cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Jan;21(1):3-11. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-01-3.

    PMID: 23281466BACKGROUND
  • Kraemer P, Fehlings MG, Hashimoto R, Lee MJ, Anderson PA, Chapman JR, Raich A, Norvell DC. A systematic review of definitions and classification systems of adjacent segment pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Oct 15;37(22 Suppl):S31-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826d7dd6.

    PMID: 22885835BACKGROUND
  • Mobbs RJ, Rao P, Chandran NK. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: analysis of surgical outcome with and without plating. J Clin Neurosci. 2007 Jul;14(7):639-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2006.04.003.

    PMID: 17532499BACKGROUND
  • Savolainen S, Rinne J, Hernesniemi J. A prospective randomized study of anterior single-level cervical disc operations with long-term follow-up: surgical fusion is unnecessary. Neurosurgery. 1998 Jul;43(1):51-5. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199807000-00032.

    PMID: 9657188BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Spinal DiseasesBone DiseasesMusculoskeletal Diseases

Study Officials

  • Kern Singh, MD

    Rush University Medical Center

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
0

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: 1\. Stand-alone ACDF, which means the placement of an interbody device (cage) without anterior fixation or plating; 2. ACDF with and interbody cage and anterior plating for fixation.
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Clinical Research Manger

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

August 8, 2017

First Posted

October 17, 2017

Study Start

July 17, 2017

Primary Completion

December 31, 2020

Study Completion

December 31, 2020

Last Updated

September 16, 2021

Record last verified: 2021-09

Locations