Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Aug 16;14:244.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-244.

The CASCADE Trial: Effectiveness of Ceramic Versus PEEK Cages for Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Interbody Fusion; Protocol of a Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

The CASCADE Trial: Effectiveness of Ceramic Versus PEEK Cages for Anterior Cervical Discectomy With Interbody Fusion; Protocol of a Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Mark P Arts et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy with interbody fusion cages is considered the standard surgical procedure in patients with cervical disc herniation. However, PEEK or metal cages have some undesirable imaging characteristics, leading to a search for alternative materials not creating artifacts on images; silicon nitride ceramic. Whether patients treated with silicon nitride ceramic cages have similar functional outcome as patients treated with PEEK cages is not known. We present the design of the CASCADE trial on effectiveness of ceramic cages versus PEEK cages in patients with cervical disc herniation and/or osteophytes.

Methods/design: Patients (age 18-75 years) with monoradicular symptoms in one or both arms lasting more than 8 weeks, due to disc herniation and/or osteophytes, are eligible for the trial. The study is designed as a randomized controlled equivalence trial in which patients are blinded to the type of cage for 1 year. The total follow-up period is 2 years. The primary outcome measure is improvement in the Neck and Disability Index (NDI). Secondary outcomes measures include improvement in arm pain and neck pain (VAS), SF-36 and patients' perceived recovery. The final elements of comparison are perioperative statistics including operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. Lateral plane films at each follow-up visit and CT scan (at 6 months) will be used to judge fusion and the incidence of subsidence. Based on a power of 90% and assuming 8% loss to follow-up, 100 patients will be randomized into the 2 groups. The first analysis will be conducted when all patients have 1 year of follow-up, and the groups will be followed for 1 additional year to judge stability of outcomes.

Discussion: While the new ceramic cage has received the CE Mark based on standard compliance and animal studies, a randomized comparative study with the golden standard product will provide more conclusive information for clinicians. Implementation of any new device should only be done after completion of randomized controlled effectiveness trials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Valeo C+CSC cervical interbody fusion device.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Silicon nitride, titanium, PEEK and trabecular metal imaging characteristics in a human cadaveric vertebra (unpublished data).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 6 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15:602–617. doi: 10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;40-A:607–624. - PubMed
    1. Abd-Alrahman N, Dokmak AS, bou-Madawi A. Anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) versus anterior cervical fusion (ACF), clinical and radiological outcome study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1999;141:1089–1092. doi: 10.1007/s007010050487. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barlocher CB, Barth A, Krauss JK, Binggeli R, Seiler RW. Comparative evaluation of microdiscectomy only, autograft fusion, polymethylmethacrylate interposition, and threaded titanium cage fusion for treatment of single-level cervical disc disease: a prospective randomized study in 125 patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2002;12:E4. - PubMed
    1. Dowd GC, Wirth FP. Anterior cervical discectomy: is fusion necessary? J Neurosurg. 1999;90:8–12. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Feedback