CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00589797Updated Dec 7, 2018Results posted

Activ-L™ Artificial Disc Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease in the Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease

An interventional study of Activ-L Artificial Disc and ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement or Charité Artificial Disc in Degenerative Disc Disease, sponsored by Aesculap Implant Systems. Completed at 17 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 60 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-12-07.

Sponsored by Aesculap Implant Systems · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
376
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to learn whether an investigational device called the Activ-L Artificial Disc is safe and effective in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of the lower (lumbar) spine.

Read the detailed description

The objective of this clinical study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Activ-L Artificial Disc for treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine in patients who have been unresponsive to at least six months of prior conservative care. The hypothesis of the study is that the Activ-L Disc is non-inferior to the control (the Charité® Artificial Disc [DePuy Spine] or ProDisc-L® Total Disc Replacement [Synthes Spine]) with respect to the rate of individual subject success at 24 months. Individual subject success is a composite of effectiveness and safety.

02

Conditions studied

  • Degenerative Disc Disease

Keywords

  • Degenerative
  • Disc
03

In context

Spinal Diseases

267 studies on the registry are indexed under Spinal Diseases; 54 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 376 is above the median of 52 across 166 interventional studies indexed under Spinal Diseases.

Browse Spinal Diseases studies →

Lead sponsor

Aesculap Implant Systems is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18 - 60, skeletally mature
  • Symptomatic DDD with objective evidence of lumbar DDD, with any of the following characteristics by MRI scan:

    • instability as defined by ≥ 3mm translation or ≥ 5° angulation.
    • osteophyte formation of facet joints or vertebral endplates.
    • decreased disc height of >2mm as compared to the adjacent level.
    • scarring/thickening of the ligamentum flavum, annulus fibrosis, or facet joint capsule.
    • herniated nucleus pulposus.
    • facet joint degeneration/changes.
    • vacuum phenomenon.
  • Single level symptomatic disease at L4/L5 or L5/S1.

    • six months of unsuccessful conservative treatment
  • ODI score ≥ 40/100.
  • Surgical candidate for an anterior approach to the lumbar spine.
  • Back pain at the operative level only, with or without leg pain.
  • Back pain VAS score greater than the higher of the two VAS leg pain scores.
  • VAS back pain score ≥ 40/100 mm.
  • Willing to return for follow-up visits and sign an Informed Consent and HIPAA Authorization.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous surgery at any lumbar level, except IDET (Intradiscal Electrothermal Annuloplasty), percutaneous nucleoplasty, or microdiscectomy.
  • Chronic radiculopathy, i.e., subject complaint of unremitting pain with a predominance of leg pain symptoms greater than back pain symptoms extending over a period of at least 1 year.
  • endplate dimensions smaller than 34.5 mm in medial-lateral and/or 27 mm in the anterior-posterior direction
  • Evidence of significant, symptomatic disc degeneration at another lumbar level.
  • Preoperative remaining disc height \< 3mm
  • Myelopathy.
  • Previous compression or burst fracture at the affected level.
  • Sequestered herniated nucleus pulposus with migration.
  • Mid-sagittal stenosis of \<8mm (by MRI).
  • Degenerative or lytic spondylolisthesis > 3mm.
  • Spondylolysis.
  • Isthmic spondylolisthesis.
  • Lumbar scoliosis (> 11 degrees of sagittal plane deformity).
  • Spinal tumor.
  • Active systemic infection or infection at the site of surgery.
  • Facet ankylosis or severe facet degeneration.
  • Continuing steroid use or prior use for more than 2 months.
  • History of allergies to any of the device components.
  • Pregnancy or planning to become pregnant within the next 2 years.
  • Morbid obesity (BMI >35).
  • Investigational drug or device use within 30 days.
  • Osteoporosis or osteopenia
  • Metabolic bone disease.
  • Leg pain with migrated sequestrum fragment.
  • History of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or other autoimmune disorder.
  • Ankylosing spondylitis.
  • History of HIV/AIDS or hepatitis that precludes surgery.
  • History of deep vein thrombosis, symptoms of arterial insufficiency, or thromboembolytic disease.
  • Current or recent history of illicit drug or alcohol abuse, or dependence as defined as the continued use of alcohol despite the development of social, legal, or health problems.
  • Life expectancy \<5 years.
  • Chemotherapy within past 5 years or any cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer treated with curative intent within the past 5 years.
  • Prior nephrectomy.
  • Abdominal adhesions, endometriosis, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, diverticulitis, ulcerative colitis or other abdominal pathology that would preclude abdominal surgical approach.
  • Insulin-dependent diabetes.
  • Any degenerative muscular or neurological condition that would interfere with evaluation of outcomes, including but not limited to Parkinson's disease, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), or multiple sclerosis.
  • History of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.
  • Peritonitis.
  • Currently in active spinal litigation as a result of medical negligence.
  • Prisoner.
  • Psychiatric or cognitive impairment that would interfere with the subject's ability to comply with the study requirements, e.g., Alzheimer's disease.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
376 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Investigational

    Implantation of the Activ-L Artificial Disc at one level of the lumbar spine, either L4/L5 or L5/S1.

    Device: Activ-L Artificial Disc

  • Active comparator
    Control

    Implantation of either the ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement or Charité Artificial Disc at one level of the lumbar spine, either L4/L5 or L5/S1.

    Device: ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement or Charité Artificial Disc

Interventions

  • DeviceActiv-L Artificial Disc

    Implantation at one level of the lumbar spine, either L4/L5 or L5/S1.

  • DeviceProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement or Charité Artificial Disc

    Implantation at one level of the lumbar spine, either L4/L5 or L5/S1.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Overall Success at 24 Months Relative to Baseline

    Measured by absence of treatment failure; absence or serious device related AE; maintenance or improvement of ROM at index level; maintenance or improvement of neurological status; improvement in ODI score.

    Time frame: 24 months

  2. Device Success

    Percent of subjects demonstrating no Subsequent Surgical Interventions (SSI's) at the index level (L4-L5 or L5-S1) at 24 months.

    Time frame: 24 months

  3. Absence of Serious Device Related Adverse Events

    Percent of subjects demonstrating no device related SAE's at 24 months as per the Clinical Events Committee (CEC)

    Time frame: 24 months

  4. Range of Motion (ROM) Success

    Percent of subjects demonstrating maintenance or improvement in ROM at 24 months compared to baseline

    Time frame: 24 months

  5. Neurological Success

    Percent of patients demonstrating maintenance or improvement in combined motor and sensory evaluations at 24 months compared to baseline

    Time frame: 24 months

  6. ODI Success

    Percent of subjects demonstrating an improvement of greater than or equal to 15 points at 24 months compared to baseline

    Time frame: 24 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. VAS Success for Back and Leg Pain at Rest

    Number of patients demonstrating improvement in back and leg pain at 24 months compared to baseline

    Time frame: 24 months

  2. ODI Success Using Two Measures of Success

    Number of subjects demonstrating improvement in two measures of ODI success at 24 months compared to baseline

    Time frame: 24 months

  3. Improvement in SF-36 Scores

    Number of subjects demonstrating a greater than or equal to 15% improvement in mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component summary scores at 24 months compared to baseline

    Time frame: 24 months

07

Results

Posted Dec 7, 2018

Participant flow

Subjects were screened and enrolled at 19 US health care center sites

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneInvestigationalControl
Started264112
Baseline218106
24 months19189
Completed19189
Not completed7323
Withdrew: Death10
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up129
Withdrew: Physician decision83
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject65
Withdrew: Non-randomized training subjects466

Outcome measures

PrimaryOverall Success at 24 Months Relative to Baseline

Measured by absence of treatment failure; absence or serious device related AE; maintenance or improvement of ROM at index level; maintenance or improvement of neurological status; improvement in ODI score.

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Overall Success at 24 Months Relative to Baseline
percentage of participantsInvestigationalControl
Including ROM success component42.2 (35.6 to 49.1)28.3 (20.0 to 37.9)
Without ROM success component61.9 (55.1 to 68.4)52.8 (42.9 to 62.6)
Statistical analysis
  • Investigational vs Control · t-test, 1 sided · p = <0.05
SecondaryVAS Success for Back and Leg Pain at Rest

Number of patients demonstrating improvement in back and leg pain at 24 months compared to baseline

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · participants
VAS Success for Back and Leg Pain at Rest
participantsInvestigationalControl
VAS Rating for Back Pain16272
VAS Rating for Left Leg Pain7235
VAS Rating for Right Leg Pain7336
PrimaryDevice Success

Percent of subjects demonstrating no Subsequent Surgical Interventions (SSI's) at the index level (L4-L5 or L5-S1) at 24 months.

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Device Success
percentage of participantsInvestigationalControl
Device Success84.4 (78.9 to 89.0)84.9 (76.6 to 91.1)
PrimaryAbsence of Serious Device Related Adverse Events

Percent of subjects demonstrating no device related SAE's at 24 months as per the Clinical Events Committee (CEC)

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Absence of Serious Device Related Adverse Events
percentage of participantsInvestigationalControl
Absence of Serious Device Related Adverse Events76.6 (70.4 to 82.1)70.8 (61.1 to 79.2)
PrimaryRange of Motion (ROM) Success

Percent of subjects demonstrating maintenance or improvement in ROM at 24 months compared to baseline

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Range of Motion (ROM) Success
percentage of participantsInvestigationalControl
Range of Motion (ROM) Success58.7 (51.9 to 65.3)42.5 (32.9 to 52.4)
PrimaryNeurological Success

Percent of patients demonstrating maintenance or improvement in combined motor and sensory evaluations at 24 months compared to baseline

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Neurological Success
percentage of participantsInvestigationalControl
Neurological Success80.3 (74.4 to 85.3)76.4 (67.2 to 84.1)
PrimaryODI Success

Percent of subjects demonstrating an improvement of greater than or equal to 15 points at 24 months compared to baseline

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
ODI Success
percentage of participantsInvestigationalControl
ODI Success75.2 (68.9 to 80.8)66.0 (56.2 to 75.0)
SecondaryODI Success Using Two Measures of Success

Number of subjects demonstrating improvement in two measures of ODI success at 24 months compared to baseline

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · participants
ODI Success Using Two Measures of Success
participantsInvestigationalControl
Greater than or equal to 15 points of improvement16470
Greater than or equal to 15% improvement17077
SecondaryImprovement in SF-36 Scores

Number of subjects demonstrating a greater than or equal to 15% improvement in mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component summary scores at 24 months compared to baseline

Time frame:
24 months
Reported as:
Number · participants
Improvement in SF-36 Scores
participantsInvestigationalControl
SF-36 MCS10148
SF-36 PCS15669

Adverse events

Collected over Serious and Non-Serious Adverse Events Adjudicated as of 9 October 2015. Non-serious events are listed at a 2% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Investigational—86/218 (39.4%)197/218 (90.4%)
Control—57/106 (53.8%)100/106 (94.3%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 52
Most frequent serious events
EventInvestigationalControl
Lumbar and Lower Extremity PainNervous system disorders9/2188/106
Non-Lumbar Radiographic ObservationMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders2/2186/106
Lumbar Only PainNervous system disorders6/2186/106
CancerNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)11/2185/106
Intestinal IssuesGastrointestinal disorders5/2185/106
Joint or Muscle IssuesMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders10/2180/106
Pain in Non-Lumbar or LegMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders3/2184/106
Lower Extremity PainNervous system disorders7/2184/106
Non-Lumbar and Lower Extremities DeficitNervous system disorders3/2184/106
Male Reproductive System IssuesReproductive system and breast disorders5/2184/106
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 36
Most frequent other events
EventInvestigationalControl
Lumbar Only PainNervous system disorders44/21830/106
Lumbar and Lower Extremity PainNervous system disorders42/21823/106
Pain in Non-Lumbar or LegMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders45/21814/106
TraumaInjury, poisoning and procedural complications38/21821/106
Lower Extremity PainNervous system disorders40/21811/106
Lumbar and Lower Extremity Sensory DeficitMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders24/21816/106
Gastric IssuesGastrointestinal disorders27/2189/106
Index Procedure Related WoundsSurgical and medical procedures17/21812/106
Urinary IssuesRenal and urinary disorders23/2187/106
Intestinal IssuesGastrointestinal disorders16/21811/106

Baseline characteristics

All enrolled subjects

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)InvestigationalControlTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years264112376
>=65 years000
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)InvestigationalControlTotal
Mean39.1 ± 8.640.0 ± 8.639.6 ± 8.6
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)InvestigationalControlTotal
Female12456180
Male14056196
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)InvestigationalControlTotal
Hispanic or Latino291241
Not Hispanic or Latino235100335
Unknown or Not Reported000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)InvestigationalControlTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native303
Asian303
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American18523
White233106339
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported718
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Scores for Low Back Pain
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Scores for Low Back Pain(units on a scale)InvestigationalControlTotal
Mean57.1 ± 13.958.6 ± 14.157.9 ± 13.9
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Ratings for Back and Leg Pain
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Ratings for Back and Leg Pain(units on a scale)InvestigationalControlTotal
VAS Back Pain79.0 ± 14.979.1 ± 14.879.1 ± 14.8
VAS Right Leg Pain28.7 ± 29.832.9 ± 29.630.6 ± 30.0
VAS Left Leg Pain29.6 ± 29.430.7 ± 29.530.4 ± 29.6
Short-Form (36) Health Questionnaire (SF-36) Scores
Short-Form (36) Health Questionnaire (SF-36) Scores(units on a scale)InvestigationalControlTotal
SF-36 MCS39.1 ± 13.939.6 ± 14.939.4 ± 14.4
SF-36 PCS29.9 ± 6.228.4 ± 6.229.2 ± 6.2

3 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

17 sites
  • Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla
    La Jolla, California 92037, United States
  • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
    Newport Beach, California 92658, United States
  • Rancho Specialty Hospital
    Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, United States
  • University of California San Francisco
    San Francisco, California 94143, United States
  • St. John's Hospital and Health Center
    Santa Monica, California 90404, United States
  • University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
    Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States
  • Yale University School of Medicine/New Haven Hospital
    New Haven, Connecticut 06520, United States
  • Aventura Hospital and Medical Center
    Aventura, Florida 33180, United States
  • University Community Hospital
    Tampa, Florida 33613, United States
  • Rush University Medical Center
    Chicago, Illinois 60612, United States
  • Neurosciences Education and Research Foundation
    Peoria, Illinois 61605, United States
  • HealthEast St. John's Hospital
    Maplewood, Minnesota 55109, United States
  • Hospital for Special Surgery
    New York, New York 10021, United States
  • Carolinas Healthcare
    Charlotte, North Carolina 28203, United States
  • University Hospitals of Cleveland
    Cleveland, Ohio 44106, United States
  • Hamot Medical Center
    Erie, Pennsylvania 16507, United States
  • University of Utah
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Yue JJ, Mo FF. Clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Aesculap Activ-L artificial disc in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. BMC Surg. 2010 Apr 9;10:14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-10-14. PubMed 20380708 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 7, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00589797
Lead sponsor
Aesculap Implant Systems
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jan 10, 2008
Start date
Jan 2007
Primary completion
Dec 2012
Completion
Jan 2017
Results posted
Dec 7, 2018
Last update
Dec 7, 2018

Study contacts

Rolando Garcia, M.D.
principal investigator · Orthopedic Care Center
James J Yue, M.D.
principal investigator · Yale University
Dom Coric, M.D.
principal investigator · Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates
Steven Dennis, M.D.
principal investigator · Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
Federico P. Girardi, M.D.
principal investigator · Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
Mick Perez-Cruet, M.D.
principal investigator · Michigan Head and Spine Institute
Harel Deutsch, M.D.
principal investigator · Rush University Medical Center
Glenn Buttermann, M.D.
principal investigator · Midwest Spine Institute
Dzung Dinh, M.D.
principal investigator · Neuroscience Education and Research Foundation
Vikas Patel, M.D.
principal investigator · University of Colorado, Denver
Christopher Ames, M.D.
principal investigator · University of California, San Francisco
John Regan, M.D.
principal investigator · St. John's Hospital and Health Center
Andrew Dailey, M.D.
principal investigator · University of Utah Medical Center
Darren Bergey, M.D.
principal investigator · Rancho Specialty Hospital
Brian Dalton, M.D.
principal investigator · Hamot Medical Center
Scott Leary, M.D.
principal investigator · Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla
David Hart, M.D.
principal investigator · University Hospitals Cleveland
Antonio Castellvi, M.D.
principal investigator · Foundatin for Orthopaedic Research and Education

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion