E-Mail Us Close
Please note that this email should only be used for feedback and comments specifically related to this particular medical policy.
  
Horizon BCBSNJ
Uniform Medical Policy ManualSection:Surgery
Policy Number:072
Effective Date: 05/12/2020
Original Policy Date:10/09/2007
Last Review Date:05/12/2020
Date Published to Web: 08/02/2016
Subject:
Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine

Description:
_______________________________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The purpose of this policy is to provide general information applicable to the administration of health benefits that Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and Horizon Healthcare of New Jersey, Inc. (collectively “Horizon BCBSNJ”) insures or administers. If the member’s contract benefits differ from the medical policy, the contract prevails. Although a service, supply or procedure may be medically necessary, it may be subject to limitations and/or exclusions under a member’s benefit plan. If a service, supply or procedure is not covered and the member proceeds to obtain the service, supply or procedure, the member may be responsible for the cost. Decisions regarding treatment and treatment plans are the responsibility of the physician. This policy is not intended to direct the course of clinical care a physician provides to a member, and it does not replace a physician’s independent professional clinical judgment or duty to exercise special knowledge and skill in the treatment of Horizon BCBSNJ members. Horizon BCBSNJ is not responsible for, does not provide, and does not hold itself out as a provider of medical care. The physician remains responsible for the quality and type of health care services provided to a Horizon BCBSNJ member.

Horizon BCBSNJ medical policies do not constitute medical advice, authorization, certification, approval, explanation of benefits, offer of coverage, contract or guarantee of payment.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Several prosthetic devices are currently available for cervical disc arthroplasty. Cervical disc arthroplasty is proposed as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for patients with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease.

PopulationsInterventionsComparatorsOutcomes
    Individuals:
    • With cervical radicular pain or myelopathy
    Interventions of interest are:
    • Single-level cervical disc arthroplasty
    Comparators of interest are:
    • Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
    Relevant outcomes include:
    • Symptoms
    • Morbid events
    • Functional outcomes
    • Quality of life
    • Treatment-related morbidity
    Individuals:
    • With cervical radicular pain or myelopathy
    Interventions of interest are:
    • Two-level cervical disc arthroplasty
    Comparators of interest are:
    • Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
    Relevant outcomes include:
    • Symptoms
    • Morbid events
    • Functional outcomes
    • Quality of life
    • Treatment-related morbidity

BACKGROUND

Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease

Cervical degenerative disc disease is a manifestation of spinal spondylosis that causes deterioration of the intervertebral discs of the cervical spine. Symptoms of cervical degenerative disc disease include arm pain, weakness, and paresthesias associated with cervical radiculopathy. Disc herniation, osteophytes, kyphosis, or instability that compress the spinal cord can result in myelopathy, which is manifested by subtle changes in gait or balance, and, in severe cases, leads to weakness in the arms or legs and numbness of the arms or hands. The prevalence of degenerative disc disease secondary to cervical spondylosis increases with age. An estimated 60% of individuals older than 40 years have radiographic evidence of cervical degenerative disc disease. By age 65, 95% of men and 70% of women have at least 1 degenerative change evident at the radiographic examination. It is estimated that approximately 5 million adults in the United States are disabled to an extent by spine-related disorders, although only a small fraction of those are clear candidates for spinal surgery.

Treatment

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has historically been considered the definitive surgical treatment for symptomatic degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. The goals of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion are to relieve pressure on the spinal nerves (decompression) and to restore spinal column alignment and stability. Resolution of pain and neurologic symptoms may be expected in 80% to 100% of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion involves an anterolateral surgical approach, decompression of the affected spinal level, discectomy, and placement of a PEEK (polyetheretherketone) or titanium interbody cage plus autograft or allograft bone in the prepared intervertebral space to stimulate healing and eventual fusion between the vertebral endplates. A metal anterior cervical plate is attached to the adjoining vertebral bodies to stabilize the fusion site, maintain neck lordosis, and reduce the need for prolonged postoperative brace application that is needed following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion without an anterior plate. Although there may be slight differences between autograft and allograft sources in the postoperative rate of union, clinical studies have demonstrated similar rates of postoperative fusion (90%-100%) and satisfactory outcomes using either bone source. Studies have suggested that altered adjacent-segment kinematics following fusion may lead to adjacent-level degenerative disc disease and need for secondary surgery.

Cervical disc arthroplasty is proposed as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for patients with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. In cervical disc arthroplasty, an artificial disc device is secured in the prepared intervertebral space rather than an interbody cage and/or bone. An anterior plate is not used to stabilize the adjacent vertebrae, and postsurgical external orthosis is usually not required. The cervical disc arthroplasty was designed to maintain anatomic disc space height, normal segmental lordosis, and physiological motion patterns at the index and adjacent cervical levels. The potential to reduce the risk of adjacent-level degenerative disc disease above or below a fusion site has been the major reason driving device development and use. Disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion have very similar surgical indications, primarily unremitting pain due to radiculopathy or myelopathy, weakness in the extremities, or paresthesia. However, the chief complaint in cervical disc arthroplasty candidates should be radicular or myelopathic symptoms in the absence of significant spondylosis or spondylolisthesis.

Regulatory Status

In 2007, the Prestige® ST Cervical Disc (Medtronic) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the premarket approval process as a class III device. The Prestige® ST Cervical Disc is composed of stainless steel and is indicated in skeletally mature patients for reconstruction of the disc from C3 through C7 following single-level discectomy. The device is implanted using an open anterior approach. Intractable radiculopathy and/or myelopathy should be present, with at least one of the following items producing symptomatic nerve root and/or spinal cord compression as documented by patient history (eg, pain [neck and/or arm pain], functional deficit, and/or neurologic deficit) and radiographic studies (eg, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, x-rays): herniated disc and/or osteophyte formation.The FDA required Medtronic (the Prestige disc manufacturer) to conduct a 7 year postapproval clinical study of the safety and function of the device and a 5 year enhanced surveillance study to more fully characterize adverse events in a broader patient population.

In 2014, the Prestige LP™ artificial cervical disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek) was approved by the FDA through the premarket approval process. The Prestige LP™ differs from the original Prestige cervical disc regarding material and fixation. The Prestige LP™ implant is composed of a proprietary titanium-ceramic composite and has 2 rails that press-fit into holes created during the surgical procedure. In 2016, the Prestige LP™ was approved by the FDA for 2 adjacent levels. A postapproval study will follow the investigational device exemption patients who received the Prestige LP™ at 2 contiguous levels for 10 years. Medtronic will also submit to the FDA adverse events, device failures, and complaint analysis for 10 years. This includes subsequent surgeries, heterotopic ossification, device malfunction, and other serious device-related complications.

Another disc arthroplasty product, the ProDisc-C® (Synthes Spine), was approved by the FDA through the premarket approval process in 2007. As with the Prestige® ST Cervical Disc, the FDA approval of ProDisc-C® was made conditional on 7-year follow-up of the 209 subjects included in the noninferiority trial (discussed in Rationale section), 7 year follow-up of 99 continued-access subjects, and a 5 year enhanced surveillance study to characterize more fully adverse events when the device is used under general conditions of use. Postapproval study reports are to be delivered to the FDA annually. The ProDisc C Vivo is currently marketed by Centinal Spine.

The Bryan® Cervical Disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek) consists of 2 titanium-alloy shells encasing a polyurethane nucleus and has been available outside of the United States since 2002. In 2009, the Bryan® Cervical Disc was approved by the FDA for treatment using an anterior approach of single-level cervical degenerative disc disease defined as any combination of the following: disc herniation with radiculopathy, spondylotic radiculopathy, disc herniation with myelopathy, or spondylotic myelopathy resulting in impaired function and at least one clinical neurologic sign associated with the cervical level to be treated, and necessitating surgery as demonstrated using computed tomography, myelography and computed tomography, and/or magnetic resonance imaging results. Patients receiving the Bryan® Cervical Disc should have failed at least six weeks of nonoperative treatment before implantation. As a condition for device approval, the FDA required Medtronic Sofamor Danek to extend its follow-up of enrolled subjects to 10 years after surgery. The study will involve the investigational and control patients from the pivotal investigational device exemption study arm, as well as the patients who received the device as part of the continued-access study arm. Also, Medtronic Sofamor Danek must perform a 5 year enhanced surveillance study of the disc to characterize more fully adverse events when the device is used in a broader patient population.

More recently, continued FDA approval requires completion of two postapproval studies. One study provides extended follow-up of the premarket pivotal cohort out to 7 years. The second study provides ten-year enhanced surveillance of adverse event data. Continued approval is contingent on submission of annual reports, which include the number of devices sold, heterotopic ossification, device malfunction, device removal, other serious device-related complications, and analysis of all explanted discs.

The following have also received the FDA approval:

    • The PCM [porous-coated motion] Cervical Disc® (NuVasive) received the FDA approval in 2012 (P100012). The PCM® is a semi-constrained device consisting of two metal (cobalt-chromium alloy) endplates and a polyethylene insert that fits between the endplates.
    • SECURE®-C (Globus Medical) was approved in 2012 (P100003). The SECURE®-C is a three-piece semi-constrained device with two metal (cobalt-chromium molybdenum alloy) endplates and a polyethylene insert.
    • The Mobi-C® (LDR Spine) received FDA approval in 2013. Mobi-C® is three-piece semi-constrained device with metal (cobalt-chromium alloy) endplates and a polyethylene insert. The Mobi-C® is approved for 1- (P110002) or 2-level (P110009) disc replacement.
    • The M6-C(TM) (Spinal Kinetics) received FDA approval for single level degenerative radiculopathy in 2019 (P170036). The device is comprised of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene weaved fiber creating a matrix (artificial annulus) within a sheath and titanium alloy endplates. The device is secured with low profile fins.
Other devices are in FDA investigational device exemption trials in the United States (see Table 1).

Table 1. Cervical Disc Prostheses Under Investigation in the United States

ProsthesisManufacturerFDA Status
SimplifySimplify MedicalFDA IDE trial
Freedom®AxioMedFDA IDE trial

FDA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; IDE: investigational device exemption.

Updates on the regulatory status of these devices are available online using FDA product code MJO

Related Policies

  • Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Lumbar Spine (Policy #051 in the Surgery Section)

Policy:
(NOTE: Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey collaborates with eviCore healthcare to conduct Prior Authorization and Medical Necessity Determination for certain Spine Surgery services (the "Program") for members enrolled in Horizon BCBSNJ fully insured products as well as ASO accounts that have elected the Program. The guidelines included in this policy apply to members enrolled in plans that have NOT elected to participate in the Program.

To access guidelines that apply to members enrolled in plans that HAVE elected the Program, please visit www.evicore.com/HorizonSpineSurgery.

For Medicare Advantage, Medicaid and FIDE-SNP, please refer to the Coverage Sections below for coverage guidance.)

A. Cervical disc arthroplasty is considered medically necessary when ALL of the following criteria are met:
    1. The device is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
    2. The member is skeletally mature;
    3. The member has intractable cervical radicular pain or myelopathy
      a. which has failed at least 6 weeks of conservative nonoperative treatment, including active pain management program or protocol, under the direction of a physician, with pharmacotherapy that addresses neuropathic pain and other pain sources AND physical therapy; OR
      b. if the member has severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of nerve root or spinal cord compression requiring hospitalization or immediate surgical treatment;
    4. Degeneration is documented by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or myelography;
    5. Cervical degenerative disc disease is from C3 through C7; and
    6. The member is free from contraindication to cervical disc arthroplasty.

B. Simultaneous cervical disc arthroplasty at a second contiguous level is considered medically necessary if the above criteria are met for each disc level, and the device is FDA-approved for 2 levels (e.g., Mobi-C, Prestige LP).

C. Subsequent cervical disc arthroplasty at an adjacent level is considered medically necessary when all of the following are met:
    1. Criteria 1 to 6 above are met; AND
    2. The device is FDA-approved for 2 levels; AND
    3. The planned subsequent procedure is at a different cervical level than the initial cervical artificial disc replacement; AND
    4. Clinical documentation that the initial cervical artificial intervertebral disc implantation is fully healed.


D. Cervical disc arthroplasty is considered investigational for all other indications, including the following:
    • Disc implantation at more than 2 levels
    • Combined use of an artificial cervical disc and fusion
    • Prior surgery at the treated level
    • Previous fusion at another cervical level
    • Translational instability
    • Anatomic deformity (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis)
    • Rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune disease
    • Presence of facet arthritis
    • Active infection
    • Metabolic bone disease (eg, osteoporosis, osteopenia, osteomalacia)
    • Malignancy.

Medicare Coverage:
There is no National Coverage Determination (NCD) or Local Coverage Determination (LCD) for jurisdiction JL for this service. Therefore, Medicare Advantage Products will follow the Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy.

Medicaid Coverage:

For members enrolled in Medicaid and NJ FamilyCare plans, Horizon BCBSNJ applies the above medical policy.

FIDE SNP:

For members enrolled in a Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plan (FIDE-SNP): (1) to the extent the service is covered under the Medicare portion of the member’s benefit package, the above Medicare Coverage statement applies; and (2) to the extent the service is not covered under the Medicare portion of the member’s benefit package, the above Medicaid Coverage statement applies.

[RATIONALE: This policy was created in 2007 and has been updated regularly with searches of the MEDLINE database. The most recent literature update was performed through March 5, 2020. This review was informed by TEC Assessments in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013.1,2,3,4,

Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are the length of life, quality of life, and ability to function, including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients and managing the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.

To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of technology, 2 domains are examined: the relevance, and quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent one or more intended clinical use of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. RCTs are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice.

Clinical Context and Therapy Purpose

The purpose of artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty of the cervical spine in patients who have cervical radicular pain or myelopathy is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies.

The question addressed in this policy is: Does artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty of the cervical spine improve the net health outcome in patients with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease?

The following PICO was used to select literature to inform this policy.

Patients

The relevant population of interest is individuals with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease.

Cervical degenerative disc disease is a manifestation of spinal spondylosis that causes deterioration of the intervertebral discs of the cervical spine. Symptoms of cervical degenerative disc disease include arm pain, weakness, and paresthesias associated with cervical radiculopathy. Disc herniation, osteophytes, kyphosis, or instability that compress the spinal cord can result in myelopathy, which may lead to weakness in the arms and numbness of the arms or hands.

Interventions

The therapy being considered is artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty of the cervical spine.

Comparators

The following therapies/tools/rules/practices are currently being used to make decisions about artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty of the cervical spine.

Comparators of interest include anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Cervical degenerative disc disease is initially treated conservatively using noninvasive measures (eg, rest, heat, ice, analgesics, anti-inflammatory agents, exercise). If symptoms do not improve or resolve within six weeks, or if symptoms progress, surgical intervention may be indicated. Candidates for surgical intervention have chronic pain or neurologic symptoms secondary to cervical degenerative disc disease and no contraindications for the procedure.

Outcomes

The general outcomes of interest are symptoms, morbid events, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity.

The Neck Disability Index is a validated multidimensional instrument that measures the effects of pain and disability on a patient's ability to manage everyday life. 5,It is a modification of the Oswestry Disability Index, based on responses to 10 questions that focus on neck pain intensity, personal care, lifting, reading, headaches, concentration, work, driving, sleeping, and recreation. Response options to each question range from 1 to 5, with a lower numeric score representing a better pain and disability status for that variable. A total Neck Disability Index score is obtained by adding individual question scores and dividing by the maximum total of 50 if all questions are answered. Therefore, Neck Disability Index scores range from 0% to 100%, with a lower percentage indicating less pain and disability. Neurologic status is a composite measure of motor function, sensory function, and deep tendon reflexes. It is used to judge whether patients are within normative parameters for those categories based on physiologic measurement. The anterior functional spinal unit height is a radiographic measure of interdiscal space. Comparison of the immediate postoperative functional spinal unit height with the six-week postoperative value shows whether the disc space has decreased, which indicates that graft or device subsidence has occurred. Other outcome measures may include the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental and Physical Component Summary scores, neck and arm pain status, patient satisfaction, patient global perceived effect, gait assessment, foraminal compression test, adjacent-level stability and measurements, return to work, and physician's perception.

Review of Evidence

Systematic Reviews

A number of systematic reviews have been published.

Hu et al (2016) published a systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (total n=2368 patients) reporting mid-term outcomes (at least 48 months) comparing artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.6, All 8 trials were rated as low-risk of bias, despite lack of blinding. Only 2 trials reported on overall success,7,8, and 3 reported on Neck Disability Index success.7,8,9, Six trials reported neurologic success data; pooled data favored the cervical disc arthroplasty group to a small degree (relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.08; p=0.01). Pooled data also showed a significant benefit of cervical disc arthroplasty for secondary procedures at the index level (6 studies) 7,8,10,11,12,13,; relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.58; p<0.001) and at the adjacent level (5 studies) 7,10,12,13,14,; relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.70; p<0.002). These trials and outcome measures are detailed below.

Latka et al (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs on cervical disc arthroplasty to evaluate safety and long-term efficacy for reducing adjacent segment degeneration.15, They included 20 publications from 13 RCTS (total of 3,656 patients) that reported 24 to 60 month results of 1 or 2 level cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. visual analog scale for neck pain was lower in patients who had cervical disc arthroplasty (mean difference =-2.30, 95% confidence interval [-3.72; -0.87], P=0.002) along with the frequency of dysphagia/dysphonia (odds ratio [OR] =0.69, 95% confidence interval CI [0.49; 0.98], P=0.04). Adjacent segment degeneration was lower with cervical disc arthroplasty compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (OR =0.33, 95% confidence interval [0.21; 0.50], P, 0.0001)

Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

The pivotal trials of 8 artificial cervical discs are described in Table 2 (Kineflex is no longer marketed). All of the trials utilized a non-inferiority design that compared cervical disc arthroplasty to the standard of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with an FDA mandated composite clinical outcome. The studied populations included patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy, and the composite outcome included improvements in disability and neurologic symptoms with absence of serious adverse events or secondary surgery at the index level. At the 24 month follow-up, all of the trials met non-inferiority and 4 of the 8 trials achieved superiority compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (Table 3). Five of the trials (Prestige ST, ProDisc-C, Bryan, Mobi-C, PCM) have reported follow-up at 3 to 10 years. At 3 to 7 years, trial results are consistent with the continued non-inferiority of cervical disc arthroplasty for clinical outcomes and/or lower cumulative reoperation rates.The pivotal study of the Bryan cervical disc has the longest follow-up at 10 years, with 100 patients per group planned for the post-approval study. Overall success was 81.3% for cervical disc arthroplasty compared to 66.3% for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (p=0.005) There was a a statistically significant difference in improvement of the neck disability index between the groups (cervical disc arthroplasty: -38.3, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: -31.1, p=0.01), but there was no significant difference in arm pain or neurologic success between the cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion groups. There was not a statistical difference in secondary surgeries, with 9.7% of cervical disc arthroplasty patients and 15.8% of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients requiring a secondary surgery at either the index or adjacent level (p=0.146).

Table 2. Summary of Pivotal Study Characteristics of Cervical Artificial Intervertebral Discs
Study; TrialDeviceDesignPrimary Outcome MeasureParticipantsInterventions
Patients with nonaxial pain and other symptoms secondary to radiculopathy or myelopathyCDAACDF
Mummaneni et al (2007)16,Prestige STMulti-center non-inferiority RCTThree primary outcome variables were used in the Prestige pivotal trial: a 15-point improvement in NDI score, neurologic status, and functional spinal unit height.Prestige ST (n=137)n=148 in FDA SSED
Gornet et al (2015)17,Prestige LPMulti-center non-inferiority RCTPrimary outcomes were neurologic success, individual success, and overall success.Prestige LP (n=280)n=265 historical controls from the Prestige ST trial
Murray et al (2009)18,ProDisc-CMulticenter non-inferiority RCTn=106
Heller et al (2009) 19,Bryan Cervical DiscMulticenter non-inferiority RCTSuccess on all of the following: ≥15-point improvement in NDI score, neurologic improvement, no serious adverse events related the implant or subsequent surgical procedure, and no subsequent surgery or interventionBryan disc (n=242)n=223
Hisey et al (2014)12, 
FDA SSED 20,
Mobi-C Single levelMulticenter non-inferiority RCTMobi-C (n=169)n=87
Phillips et al (2013) 21,Porous Coated Motion (PCM)Multicenter non-inferiority RCTPCM (n=224)n=192
Vacarro et al (20,22,Secure CMulticenter non-inferiority RCTSecure C (n=151)n=140
FDA SSED: M6-C23,M6-CMulticenter non-randomized pragmatic trialImprovement of NDI > 15 pts, maintenance or improvement in neurologic function, and no serious adverse events or supplemental surgical proceduresPatients with intractable degenerative cervical radiculopathy (arm pain and/or a neurological deficit) at one level from C3 – C7M6-C (n=160)189 propensity matched controls selected from concurrent ACDF patients and a previous IDE study

ACDF: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDA: cervical disc arthroplasty; FDA SSED: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Summary of Safety and Effectiveness; IDE: investigational device exemption; NDI: neck disability index; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Table 3. Summary of Pivotal RCT Results
Outcomes24 Months36-48 Months60 Months84 Months120 Months
CDAACDFpCDAACDFpCDAACDFpCDAACDFpCDAACDFp
Prestige STMummaneni et al (2007)16,Burkus et al (2014)24,
n212183
Overall SuccessSuperiority72.6%60.0%0.008
NDI81%81%Met non-Inferiority-37.5-31.9
Neurologic Success88.2%79.7%0.011
Secondary Surgeries4.8%13.7%
Prestige LPGornet et al (2015)17,
n272223a
Overall SuccessSuperiority
NDI
Neurologic Success93.5%83.5%Superiority
Secondary Surgeries
ProDisc CMurray et al (2009)18,Delamarter et al (2010)25,Zigler et al (2013) Delamarter et al (2013)26,27,Janssen et al (2015)13,
n85%7567152/209 (72.7%)
Overall Success72%68%Met non-inferiority
NDI50%-60%NS
Neurologic Success88%89%NS
Secondary Surgeries2.9%14.5%7%18%0.009
Bryan Cervical DiscHeller et al (2009)19,Sasso et al (2011)8,Lavelle et al (2018)28,
n230 (95%)194 (87%)181 (75%)138 (62%)128b104
Overall Success82.6%72.7%Superiority85.1%72.5%0.00481.3%66.3%0.005
NDI-38.3-31.10.01
Arm Pain16.622.40.028-58.9-51.60.60
Neurologic SuccessNS92.1%95.1%0.82
Secondary Surgeries7.8%8.6%NS9.7%15.8%0.146
Mobi-C (1 level)Hisey et al (2014)12,20,Hisey et al (2015) 29,Hisey et al (2016)30,
n93%85.5%78.9%
Overall Success73.7%65.3%Met non-inferiority61.9%52.2%Met non-inferiority
NDIMet non-inferiority
Neurologic Success
Secondary Surgeries1.2%6.2%4.9%17.3%<0.01
PCMPhillips et al (2013)21,Phillips et al (2015)9,
n189151Per protocol163 (74.8%)130 (70.3%)
Overall Success75.1%64.9%Superiority85%74.2%
Arm PainNS
Neurologic SuccessNS
Secondary Surgeries8.1%12.0%NS
Secure CVacarro et al (2013)22,20,
n87%
Overall Success83.8%73.2%Met non-inferiority
NDI Success89.2%84.5%Met non-inferiority
Neurologic Success96.0%94.9%Met non-inferiority
Secondary Surgeries2.5%9.7%
M6-CFDA SSED23,
n160189
Overall Success86.8%79.3%Met non-inferiority
NDI Success90.5%85.1%
Neurologic Success93.3%87.2%
Secondary Surgeries1.9%4.8%
Pain Medication14%38.2%
ACDF: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDA: cervical disc arthroplasty; NDI; neck disability index; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Section Summary: Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

At 2 year follow-up, the pivotal trials of 8 artificial cervical discs met noninferiority criteria, with 4 achieving statistical superiority compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Mid-term outcomes have been reported on five devices. At 3 to 7 years, trial results have been consistent with the continued non-inferiority of cervical disc arthroplasty for clinical outcomes and/or lower cumulative reoperation rates. Ten year follow-up for the Bryan Cervical Disc continues to support safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty. Longer term results for other discs are expected, given the FDA requirement for 7 year postapproval studies of the safety and function of the devices, and 5 to 10 year enhanced surveillance to characterize more fully adverse events in a broader patient population. Serious adverse events appear to be uncommon. Heterotopic ossification can occur in a substantial proportion of spinal segments with artificial intervertebral discs but does not appear to lead to a decline in clinical outcomes.

Two-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

In 2016, the Prestige LP™ received FDA approval for implantation at 2 levels.31, Overall success was achieved in 81.4% of Prestige LP patients and 69.4% of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion controls, meeting both noninferiority and superiority margin, with a posterior probability of near 100% and 99.3%, respectively (Table 5). Table 5 provides data on patients who reached follow-ups at intervals up to 120 months. The difference in success rates between the Prestige LP™ and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients achieved at 24 months was maintained through 10 years.

Two and 4 year results from the 2-level Mobi-C investigational device exemption trial were reported by Davis et al (2013, 2015) with 5-year results published by Radcliff et al (2016).11,32,33,. Clinically relevant heterotopic ossification (grade III or IV) was observed in 29.7% of the Mobi-C patients but the Mobi-C patients had significantly less adjacent-segment degeneration (50.7%) than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients (90.5%; p<0.001).

Table 4. Summary of Pivotal RCT Characteristics of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty at Two Continuous Levels
Study; TrialDeviceDesignBlindingPrimary Outcome MeasureParticipantsInterventions
CDAACDF
FDA SSED (2016)Prestige LPMulticenter Noninferiority TrialOverall successaPrestige LP at 2 contiguous levels (n=299)n=188
Davis et al (2013)Mobi-COverall SuccessMobi-C at 2 contiguous level (n=209)n=188

CDA: artificial intervertebral disc; ACDF: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; FDA SSED: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Summary of Safety and Effectiveness; NDI: neck disability index; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
a
Overall success was achieved if the postoperative score improvement in the NDI was ≥ 15 points, neurological status did not worsen, and no serious implant/surgical procedure–associated adverse event, or second surgery, which was deemed “failure,”occurred.

Table 5. Follow-Up and Success Rates for 2-Level Cervical Discs Compared With 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion
Outcomes24 Months48 Months60 Months84 Months120 Months
CDAACDFpCDAACDFpCDAACDFpCDAACDFpCDAACDFp
Prestige LPFDA SSEDGornet et al (2019)a
n (%)199 (95)160 (86)185 (89)149 (80)166 (80)138 (74)126 (67)99 (58)148 (86%a)118 (85%)
Overall success n/N (%)162/199 (81.4%)111/160 (69.4%)Superiority151/185 (81.6%)105/149 (70.5%)132/166 (79.6%)91/138 (65.5%)99/126 (78.6%)62/99 (62.6%)80.4%62.2%Superiority
NDI Success87.9%79.2%Superiority89.7%82.3%Superiority89.2%77.8%Superiority87.0%75.6%Superiority88.4%76.5%Superiority
Neurologic Success91.5%86.2%NS90.3%83.8%Superiority90.4%87.5%NS91.6%82.1%Superiority92.6%86.1%Superiority
Secondary Surgeries2.4%3.2%13.7%35.5%Significant
Mobi-CDavis et al (2013)Davis et al (2015)Radcliff et al 2016)
n22510589.0%81.2%90.7%86.7%
Overall success66.0%36.0%61%31%<0.001
NDI Success79.3%53.4%<0.001Significant
Neurologic Success
Arm and Neck PainNot Significant
Secondary Surgeries4.0%15.2%7.1%21.0%<0.001
ACDF: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; CDA: cervical disc arthroplasty; FDA: SSED: US Food and Drug Administration Summary of Safety and Effectiveness; NS: not significantly different
a Not all sites were involved in the 10 yr follow-up. Patients who died (n=5) or had withdrawn from the study (n=25) were also excluded from the analysis.

Post hoc analysis of data from the pivotal 1- and 2-level Mobi-C trials was reported by Bae et al (2015).34, The comparison showed no significant differences between 1 and 2 level cervical disc arthroplasty on clinical outcomes (Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores), major complication rates (4.3% for 1-level cervical disc arthroplasty vs 4.0% for 2-level cervical disc arthroplasty), or subsequent surgery rates (3.0% of 1-level vs 4.0% of 2-level). Clinically relevant heterotopic ossification was observed in 23.8% of 1-level patients and 25.7% of 2-level patients. Huppert et al (2011) compared outcomes between single-level (n=175) and multilevel (2-4 levels, n=56) cervical disc arthroplasty with the Mobi-C device in a prospective multicenter study from Europe.35, At 2 years, there were no significant differences between groups for overall success, radicular and cervical visual analog scale scores, Neck Disability Index scores, and range of motion There was a trend for more patients in the single-level group than in the 2-level group to return to work (70% vs 46%) and for the return to work to occur sooner (4.8 months vs 7.5 months), respectively.

Section Summary: Two-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty

The FDA approval for the Prestige LP™ disc at 2 levels was based on superiority to 2 level ACDF at two-year follow-up. At present, over 80% of patients have reached 3 year follow-up, and 85% of expected patients have reached 10 year follow-up. The difference in overall success rates at two years was been maintained at 10 years. Secondary outcome measures showed superiority of CDA over ACDF.

The first artificial cervical disc approved for 2 levels (Mobi-C) was found to be noninferior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the investigational device exemption trial. Superiority to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion was achieved for Neck Disability Index scores, Neck Disability Index success rates, and overall success composite outcome. Reoperation rates were significantly lower in the Mobi-C group. At 5 years, trial results were consistent with the continued superiority of 2 level cervical disc arthroplasty for clinical outcomes and lower cumulative reoperation rates. Although a third of patients who received the Mobi-C had clinically significant heterotopic ossification, adjacent-segment degeneration with Mobi-C was found in a lower percentage of patients than in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients.

Registry Data

Staub et al (2016) evaluated the clinical effectiveness of cervical disc arthroplasty for 987 patients in the Spine Tango registry.36, The primary outcome measures were the neck and arm pain relief and the Core Outcome Measures Index. One analysis evaluated outcomes from a matched pair of patients (190 pairs) who met the selection criteria of published RCTs. With an average follow-up of 17 months, there were small but statistically significant differences in outcomes between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The mean group differences on a 10 point scale for both pain measures was 0.6 points in postoperative neck pain (p=0.04) and 0.7 points in arm pain (p=0.02); mean Core Outcome Measures Index score difference was 0.8 points (p=0.01). Change scores did not differ significantly. The probability of being a responder (2-point change) was significantly better in the cervical disc arthroplasty group than in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group for arm pain relief (78.4% vs 67.4%, p=0.02) and Core Outcome Measures Index score (81.6% vs 67.9%, p<0.01) but not neck pain relief (62.1% vs 57.9%, p=NS), respectively.

For patients who would have been excluded from the RCTs, most commonly due to an age greater than 60 years or spondylosis, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. A third analysis compared outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in patients who had a follow-up of more than 2 years (mean, 55.0 months; range, 27.0-76.5 months). After controlling for patient age, patients treated with cervical disc arthroplasty had significantly higher responder rates for arm pain relief (80.0%) compared with patients treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (64.9%; p=0.05), with no significant difference in responder rates between groups for neck pain relief or Core Outcome Measures Index. Rates of adjacent-level degeneration and secondary surgeries were not assessed.

MacDowall et al compared 5- year outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion from the Swedish Spine Registry.37, Using propensity matching, the investigators identified 185 patients in each group who had cervical degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy. The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index, with a minimum clinically important difference of > 15%. Scores on the Neck Disability Index were halved in both groups, but there was no significant difference (3.0%; 95% confidence interval -8.4 to 2.4; p = 0.28) between the groups. There were also no differences between the groups in EuroQol-5 Dimensions or in pain scores for the neck and arm.

Limitations of registry studies include the possibility of selection bias, which can be reduced by propensity matching.

Adverse Events

Heterotopic ossification appears to be common with cervical disc arthroplasty but there is no evidence of a large impact on clinical outcomes. A meta-analysis by Chen et al (2012) evaluating rates of heterotopic ossification (McAfee grade 3-4) after cervical disc arthroplasty included 8 studies (total n=617 patients).38, The pooled prevalence of any heterotopic ossification was 58.2% at 24 months after cervical disc arthroplasty and the pooled prevalence of advanced heterotopic ossification was 16.7% after 24 months.

Nunley et al (2018) evaluated the effect of heterotopic ossification on clinical outcomes.39, Heterotopic ossification was radiographically graded for 164 one-level and 225 two-level cervical disc arthroplasty patients from the Mobi-C pivotal trials and correlated with clinical outcomes. At 7 years, clinically relevant (grade 3 or 4) heterotopic ossification that affects range of motion was present in 28.7% of 1-level patients and 37.4% of 2-level patients. Patients were divided into non-clinically relevant heterotopic ossification and clinically relevant (motion restricting) heterotopic ossification. Arm pain and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey scores were not significantly different between the groups. There was an interaction between heterotopic ossification and time for the Neck Disability Index (p=0.04), with a statistically significant difference between groups of 4.0 beginning at 48 months. There was also a statistical interaction between heterotopic ossification and visual analog scale neck pain, with a difference of 5 to 8 mm out of 100. The clinical significance of these differences is uncertain.

Summary of Evidence

For individuals who have cervical radicular pain or myelopathy who receive single-level cervical disc arthroplasty, the evidence includes randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, morbid events, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. At 2 year follow-up, trials of all artificial cervical discs met noninferiority criteria compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Mid-term outcomes have been reported on 5 devices (Prestige ST, ProDisc-C, Bryan, Mobi-C, PCM [Porous Coated Motion]). At 4 to 5 years, the trial results have been consistent with the continued noninferiority of cervical disc arthroplasty for clinical outcomes and lower cumulative reoperation rates. Seven year follow-up of the Prestige and ProDisc-C pivotal trials continue to show lower secondary surgery rates, although this is not a consistent finding in other reports. Serious adverse events appear to be uncommon. Heterotopic ossification can occur in a substantial proportion of spinal segments with artificial intervertebral discs but does not appear to lead to a decline in clinical outcomes. The evidence to date shows outcomes that are at least as good as the standard treatment of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. There have been no safety signals with discs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for single-level cervical disc arthroplasty. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

For individuals who have cervical radicular pain or myelopathy who receive 2 level cervical disc arthroplasty of the cervical spine, the evidence includes RCTs. The relevant outcomes are symptoms, morbid events, functional outcomes, quality of life, and treatment-related morbidity. FDA approval for the Prestige LP™ was based on superiority to 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in overall success at 2 years. The increase in overall success rates at 2 years has been maintained for those patients who have reached the 10-year follow-up. At 2 and 4 year follow-ups, the first artificial cervical disc approved for 2 levels (Mobi-C) was found to be superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for Neck Disability Index scores, Neck Disability Index success rates, reoperation rates, and overall success composite outcome. At 5 years, trial results were consistent with the continued superiority of 2 level cervical disc arthroplasty for clinical outcomes and lower cumulative reoperation rates. Adjacent-segment degeneration with Mobi-C was found in a significantly lower percentage of patients compared with 2 level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion patients. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that 2 level cervical disc arthroplasty with either of these FDA approved discs is at least as beneficial as the established alternative. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in a meaningful improvement in the net health outcome.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Clinical Input From Physician Specialty Societies and Academic Medical Centers

While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process, through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.

2015 Input

In response to requests, input was received from 3 physician specialty societies and 2 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2015. There was agreement that cervical disc replacement may be medically necessary under specified conditions. Likewise, there was agreement that combined use of an artificial disc and fusion over two levels was investigational. Input was mixed on the medical necessity of 2 level artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty.

2009 Input

In response to requests, input was received from 2 physician specialty societies and 2 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2009. Input did not support the conclusion that artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty is investigational.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

North American Spine Society

In 2015, the guidelines from the North American Spine Society indicated that 40,:

"Cervical artificial disc replacement, (also known as cervical total disc replacement and cervical arthroplasty) may be indicated for the following diagnoses with qualifying criteria, when appropriate:

    1. Radiculopathy related to nerve root compression from one or 2 level degenerative disease (either herniated disc or spondylotic osteophyte) from C3-4 to C6-7 with or without neck pain that has been refractory to medical or nonoperative management.
    2. Myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy related to central spinal stenosis from one or 2-level degenerative disc disease from C3-4 to C6-7 with or without neck pain."

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

In 2010, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on the artificial cervical disc, concluding that41,:

"Current evidence on the efficacy of prosthetic intervertebral disc replacement in the cervical spine shows that this procedure is as least as efficacious as fusion in the short term and may result in a reduced need for revision surgery in the long term. The evidence raises no particular safety issues that are not already known in relation to fusion procedures….

This procedure should only be carried out in specialist units where surgery of the cervical spine is undertaken regularly.

NICE encourages further research into prosthetic intervertebral disc replacement in the cervical spine. Research outcomes should include long-term data on preservation of mobility, occurrence of adjacent segment disease and the avoidance of revision surgery."

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Not applicable.

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials

Some currently unpublished trials that might influence this policy are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Key Trials
NCT No.Trial NamePlanned EnrollmentCompletion Date
Ongoing
NCT02403453aRHINE™ Cervical Disc Clinical Study166Aug 2026
NCT03123549aClinical Study Protocol for the Investigation Of The Two Level Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc200Nov 2020
NCT02667067aClinical Study Protocol for the Investigation Of The Simplify® Cervical Artificial Disc150Jan 2023
Unpublished
NCT00432159aA Multi-Center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Cervical Arthroplasty to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DISCOVER™ IDE Study)500May 2016
(completed)
NCT01763619aFreedom® Cervical Disc Use In The Treatment of Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease50Jul 2017
(unknown)

NCT: national clinical trial.
a
Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial..]
________________________________________________________________________________________

Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy Development Process:

This Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy (the “Medical Policy”) has been developed by Horizon BCBSNJ’s Medical Policy Committee (the “Committee”) consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice, and reflects Horizon BCBSNJ’s view of the subject health care services, supplies or procedures, and in what circumstances they are deemed to be medically necessary or experimental/ investigational in nature. This Medical Policy also considers whether and to what degree the subject health care services, supplies or procedures are clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration and if they are considered effective for the illnesses, injuries or diseases discussed. Where relevant, this Medical Policy considers whether the subject health care services, supplies or procedures are being requested primarily for the convenience of the covered person or the health care provider. It may also consider whether the services, supplies or procedures are more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services, supplies or procedures that are at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the relevant illness, injury or disease. In reaching its conclusion regarding what it considers to be the generally accepted standards of medical practice, the Committee reviews and considers the following: all credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, physician and health care provider specialty society recommendations, the views of physicians and health care providers practicing in relevant clinical areas (including, but not limited to, the prevailing opinion within the appropriate specialty) and any other relevant factor as determined by applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Index:
Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine
Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty
Prestige Cervical Disc System
Prestige® LP (Medtronic) Artificial Cervical Disc
Bryan Cervical Disc
ProDisc-C (Synthes Spine)
Kineflex C® Cervical Artificial Disc Implant (Spinal Motion)
NeoDisc™ (NuVasive)
PCM Cervical Disc System
Porous-Coated Motion (PCM) Cervical Disc
CerviCore™ Intervertebral Disc (Stryker)
Discover (DePuy)
Freedom® Cervical Disc (AxioMed)
M6-C (Spinal Kinetics)
Prestige ST Cervical Disc
Mobi-C (LDR Spine)
Secure-C (Globus Medical)

References:
1. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. TEC Assessments. 2007;Volume 22:Tab 12.

2. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. TEC Assessments. 2009;Volume 24:Tab 3.

3. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disease of the cervical spine. TEC Assessments. 2011;Volume 26:Tab 5.

4. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Artificial intervertebral disc arthroplasty for treatment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine. TEC Assessments. 2013;Volume 28:Tab 13.

5. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. Sep 1991;14(7):409-415. PMID 1834753

6. Hu Y, Lv G, Ren S, et al. Mid- to long-term outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of eight prospective randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. Feb 2016;11(2):e0149312. PMID 26872258

7. Burkus JK, Traynelis VC, Haid RW, Jr., et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of an artificial cervical disc: 7- year follow-up from the Prestige prospective randomized controlled clinical trial: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. Oct 2014;21(4):516-528. PMID 25036218

8. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, et al. Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Sep 21 2011;93(18):1684-1692. PMID 21938372

9. Phillips FM, Geisler FH, Gilder KM, et al. Long-term outcomes of the US FDA IDE prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). May 15 2015;40(10):674-683. PMID 25955086

10. Coric D, Kim PK, Clemente JD, et al. Prospective randomized study of cervical arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with long-term follow-up: results in 74 patients from a single site. J Neurosurg Spine. Jan 2013;18(1):36-42. PMID 23140129

11. Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow- up results. J Neurosurg Spine. Jan 2015;22(1):15-25. PMID 25380538

12. Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis RJ, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion: results at 48 months follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. May 2015;28(4):E237-243. PMID 25310394

13. Janssen ME, Zigler JE, Spivak JM, et al. ProDisc-C Total Disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Nov 4 2015;97(21):1738-1747. PMID 26537161

14. Zhang HX, Shao YD, Chen Y, et al. A prospective, randomised, controlled multicentre study comparing cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion. Int Orthop. Dec 2014;38(12):2533-2541. PMID 25209344

15. Latka D, Kozlowska K, Miekisiak G et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical disc arthroplasty in preventing the adjacent segment disease: a meta-analysis of mid- to long-term outcomes in prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019;15:531-539. PMID 30992666

16. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. Mar 2007;6(3):198-209. PMID 17355018

17. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Shaffrey ME, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with PRESTIGE LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective, multicenter investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine. Jul 31 2015:1-16. PMID 26230424

18. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. Apr 2009;9(4):275-286. PMID 18774751

19. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jan 15 2009;34(2):101-107. PMID 19112337

20. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): Mobi-C. 2013; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf11/P110002b.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2020.

21. Phillips FM, Lee JY, Geisler FH, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical investigation comparing PCM cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: 2-year results from the US FDA IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jul 1 2013;38(15):E907-918. PMID 23591659

22. Vaccaro A, Beutler W, Peppelman W, et al. Clinical outcomes with selectively constrained SECURE-C cervical disc arthroplasty: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Dec 15 2013;38(26):2227-2239. PMID 24335629

23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness: M6-C Artificial Cervical Disc. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P170036. Accessed March 10, 2020

24. Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, et al. Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. Sep 2010;13(3):308-318. PMID 20809722

25. Delamarter RB, Murrey D, Janssen ME, et al. Results at 24 months from the prospective, randomized, multicenter Investigational Device Exemption trial of ProDisc-C versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with 4-year follow-up and continued access patients. SAS J. Jan 2010;4(4):122-128. PMID 25802660

26. Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Feb 1 2013;38(3):203-209. PMID 23080427

27. Delamarter RB, Zigler J. Five-year reoperation rates, cervical total disc replacement versus fusion, results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Nov 2 2013;38(9):711-717. PMID 23124255

28. Lavelle WF, Riew KD, Levi AD et al. Ten-year Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement With the BRYAN Cervical Disc: Results From a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Spine. 2019 May;44(9). PMID 30325888

29. Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, et al. Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg. Feb 2014;8. PMID 25694918

30. Hisey MS, Zigler JE, Jackson R, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:10. PMID 27162712

31. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness: Prestige LP Cervical Disc. PMA Number P090029/S003. 2016; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/p090029s003b.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2020.

32. Davis RJ, Kim KD, Hisey MS, et al. Cervical total disc replacement with the Mobi-C cervical artificial disc compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. Nov 2013;19(5):532-545. PMID 24010901

33. Radcliff K, Coric D, Albert T. Five-year clinical results of cervical total disc replacement compared with anterior discectomy and fusion for treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. Aug 2016;25(2):213-224. PMID 27015130

34. Bae HW, Kim KD, Nunley PD, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes of 1- and 2-level total disc replacement: four-year results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jun 1 2015;40(11):759-766. PMID 25785955

35. Huppert J, Beaurain J, Steib JP, et al. Comparison between single- and multi-level patients: clinical and radiological outcomes 2 years after cervical disc replacement. Eur Spine J. Sep 2011;20(9):1417-1426. PMID 21336970

36. Staub LP, Ryser C, Roder C, et al. Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trials. Spine J. Feb 2016;16(2):136- 145. PMID 26674445

37. MacDowall A, Skeppholm M, Lindhagen L et al. Artificial disc replacement versus fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy: 5-year outcomes from the National Swedish Spine Register. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Nov;30(2). PMID 30485205

38. Chen J, Wang X, Bai W, et al. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta- analysis. Eur Spine J. Apr 2012;21(4):674-680. PMID 22134486

39. Nunley PD, Cavanaugh DA, Kerr EJ et al. Heterotopic Ossification After Cervical Total Disc Replacement at 7 Years-Prevalence, Progression, Clinical Implications, and Risk Factors. Int J Spine Surg. 2018 Jun;12(3). PMID 30276092

40. North American Spine Society. NASS coverage policy recommendations: Cervical artificial disc replacement. 2015; https://www.spine.org/PolicyPractice/CoverageRecommendations/AboutCoverageRecommendations.aspx. Accessed March 10, 2020.

41. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Prosthetic intervertebral disc replacement in the cervical spine [IPG341]. 2010; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg341. Accessed March 10, 2020.

42. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Lumbar Artificial DISC Replacement (LADR) (150.10). 2007; https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd- details.aspx?NCDId=313&ncdver=2&CoverageSelection=National&KeyWord=disc&KeyWordLookUp=Title&Key WordSearchType=And&from2=search.asp&bc=gAAAACAAAAAAAA%3d%3d&. Accessed March 10 2020.

Codes:
(The list of codes is not intended to be all-inclusive and is included below for informational purposes only. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis, drug or device code(s) does not constitute or imply authorization, certification, approval, offer of coverage or guarantee of payment.)

CPT*

    22856
    22858
    22861
    22864
    0375T
    0095T
    0098T
HCPCS

* CPT only copyright 2020 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. CPT is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Medical policies can be highly technical and are designed for use by the Horizon BCBSNJ professional staff in making coverage determinations. Members referring to this policy should discuss it with their treating physician, and should refer to their specific benefit plan for the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions of their coverage.

The Horizon BCBSNJ Medical Policy Manual is proprietary. It is to be used only as authorized by Horizon BCBSNJ and its affiliates. The contents of this Medical Policy are not to be copied, reproduced or circulated to other parties without the express written consent of Horizon BCBSNJ. The contents of this Medical Policy may be updated or changed without notice, unless otherwise required by law and/or regulation. However, benefit determinations are made in the context of medical policies existing at the time of the decision and are not subject to later revision as the result of a change in medical policy

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________