Skip to content

Prospective Comparative Analysis of ACDF vs Fusion Interbody Cages With nanoLOCK Osseointegrative Technology

Prospective Comparative Analysis Evaluating Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Stand-Alone Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Interbody Cages With nanoLOCK Osseointegrative Technology

Status
Enrolling by invitation
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05762055
Enrollment
200
Registered
2023-03-09
Start date
2024-02-05
Completion date
2026-05-01
Last updated
2026-05-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cervical Myelopathy, Cervical Radiculopathy

Keywords

spine, cervical, discectomy, bony fusion, dysphagia, radiographic fusion, radiographic adjacent segment disease

Brief summary

Study team will plan a prospective, randomized control trial using our institution's spine clinical outcomes registry. Eligible patients undergoing ACDF (see inclusion criteria listed below) will be randomized to an Intervention or Control Group, which will differ according to the interbody cage used during the procedure. In the Intervention Group (100 patients), Medtronic Titan Endoskeleton TCS zero-profile, stand-alone interbody cages with nanoLOCK osseointegrative technology will be implanted at each treated level. In the Control Group (100 patients), patients will receive an alternative interbody cage system that does not employ nanoLOCK ossteointegrative technology. Interbody cages used in the Control Group (along with the decision to apply anterior plate fixation) will be determined according to surgeon preference. There will be no blinding to the type of implant used. Standard demographic and procedural variables will be collected for all patients (including history of diabetes, tobacco, use, prior use of oral corticosteroids, number of levels fused, and presence of bicortical screw placement). Clinical and radiographic outcomes in the Intervention and Control Groups will be directly compared.

Detailed description

Aim 1: Examine the effect of nanoLOCK technology on rates of postoperative dysphagia after ACDF. Aim 2: Evaluate the effect of nanoLOCK technology on radiographic fusion. Aim 3: Evaluate how nanoLOCK technology influences the development of radiographic adjacent segment disease.

Interventions

DEVICETitan nanoLOCK interbody cage

Medtronic Titan Endoskeleton TCS zero-profile, stand-alone interbody cages with nanoLOCK osseointegrative technology

DEVICEACDF interbody cage

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an alternative interbody cage system that does not employ nanoLOCK ossteointegrative technology

Sponsors

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER
Medtronic
CollaboratorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Subjects 18 years of age or older * Subjects undergoing ACDF surgery for degenerative pathology (one, two or three levels) * Subjects with no prior history of cervical spine surgery * Subjects with complete/usable data

Exclusion criteria

* Subjects under the age of 18 * Subjects not undergoing ACDF surgery * Subjects with prior cervical spine surgery * Subjects with cervical neoplastic or infectious disease pathology * Subjects with cervical trauma pathology * ACDF performed at C2-3 * Subjects with incomplete/unusable data

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of patient reported dysphagia events measured by Eat-10 assessment toolPostoperative at Day 1Number of patient reported dysphagia events (incidence \& severity ) is measured by Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) post surgery at day1 which is self-administered, symptom-specific outcome instrument for dysphagia. It consists of ten statements that a patient rates on a scale of 0-4, with 0=no problem to 4=severe problem.
Dysphagia as measured by SWAL-QOL assessment toolPostoperative at day 1Dysphagia is measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool which is designed to find out how one's swallowing problem has been affecting their day-to-day quality of life. Scoring in each domain is calculated by the sums of scores for each item expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible domain score. A total SWAL-QOL score is derived by summing each domain score and dividing by 10 giving a total SWAL-QOL score that ranges between 0 and 100 (worst-best).
Degree of radiographic fusion6 weeks following surgeryDegree of radiographic fusion is measured by quantifying (count of) the presence of bony trabeculae crossing the interface between the implant and adjacent levels as obtained via CT of the cervical spine.
Incidence of radiographic adjacent segment disease6 months following surgeryIncidence of radiographic adjacent segment disease is measured by quantifying (number of occurrence) the following parameters (i.e., Suprajacent and/or subjacent level kyphosis; Vacuum disc phenomenon at adjacent level discs; Adjacent level compression deformity) on postoperative imaging

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of participants experiencing neck painBaseline (Pre-op)Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain is assessed using VAS-neck questionnaire. Possible scores range from 0-10, where 0=no pain and 10= worst pain imaginable.
Percentage of participants showing functional improvementBaseline (Pre-op)Percentage of participants showing functional improvement is assessed using Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaire. Each question contains six answer choices, scored from 0 (no disability) to 5 (complete disability). All section scores are then totaled. Scoring is reported on a 0-50 scale, 0 being the best possible score and 50 being the worst.
Number of participants who experienced overall complications3 years following surgeryOverall complication rate is measured by number of participants who experienced overall complications (including instrumentation fracture, cage subsidence, revision surgery, and wound breakdown/infection)
Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes as measured by PROMIS-29Baseline (Pre-op)Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes is measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire which contains 4 items for each of seven PROMIS domains (Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Pain Interference, Physical Function, Sleep Disturbance, and Satisfaction-Social Role and Activity. PROMIS-29 also includes an additional pain intensity 0-10 NRS. The raw score of each domain is converted into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a SD of 10 for the general population in the US (T-Score).

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORSalah Aoun, MD

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 14, 2026