Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Enrolling by Invitation

NCT Number: NCT05762055

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

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.

Enrolling by Invitation

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year–99 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Dallas, Texas, 75390, United States

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

Titan nanoLOCK interbody cage

Device

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

Other names: Titan nanoLOCK®

ACDF interbody cage

Device

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

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of patient reported dysphagia events measured by Eat-10 assessment tool

    Time frame: Postoperative at Day 1

    Number 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.

  2. Number of patient reported dysphagia events measured by Eat-10 assessment tool

    Time frame: 2 weeks following surgery

    Number 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.

  3. Number of patient reported dysphagia events measured by Eat-10 assessment tool

    Time frame: 3 months following surgery

    Number 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.

  4. Number of patient reported dysphagia events measured by Eat-10 assessment tool

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    Number 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.

  5. Number of patient reported dysphagia events measured by Eat-10 assessment tool

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    Number 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.

  6. Dysphagia as measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool

    Time frame: Postoperative at day 1

    Dysphagia 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).

  7. Dysphagia as measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool

    Time frame: 2 weeks following surgery

    Dysphagia 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).

  8. Dysphagia as measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool

    Time frame: 3 months following surgery

    Dysphagia is measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool which is used in understanding quality of life in swallowing disorders. 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).

  9. Dysphagia as measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    Dysphagia 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).

  10. Dysphagia as measured by SWAL-QOL assessment tool

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    Dysphagia 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).

  11. Degree of radiographic fusion

    Time frame: 6 weeks following surgery

    Degree 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.

  12. Degree of radiographic fusion

    Time frame: 3 months following surgery

    Degree 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.

  13. Degree of radiographic fusion

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    Degree 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.

  14. Degree of radiographic fusion

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    Degree 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.

  15. Incidence of radiographic adjacent segment disease

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    Incidence 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

  16. Incidence of radiographic adjacent segment disease

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    Incidence 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 outcomes

  1. Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain

    Time frame: Baseline (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.

  2. Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain

    Time frame: 6 weeks following surgery

    Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain is assessed using Vissual Analogue Scale (VAS)-neck questionnaire. Possible scores range from 0-10, where 0=no pain and 10= worst pain imaginable.

  3. Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain

    Time frame: 3 months following surgery

    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.

  4. Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    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.

  5. Percentage of participants experiencing neck pain

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    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.

  6. Percentage of participants showing functional improvement

    Time frame: Baseline (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.

  7. Percentage of participants showing functional improvement

    Time frame: 6 weeks following surgery

    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.

  8. Percentage of participants showing functional improvement

    Time frame: 3 months following surgery

    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.

  9. Percentage of participants showing functional improvement

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    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.

  10. Percentage of participants showing functional improvement

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    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.

  11. Number of participants who experienced overall complications

    Time frame: 3 years following surgery

    Overall complication rate is measured by number of participants who experienced overall complications (including instrumentation fracture, cage subsidence, revision surgery, and wound breakdown/infection)

  12. Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes as measured by PROMIS-29

    Time frame: Baseline (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).

  13. Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes as measured by PROMIS-29

    Time frame: 6 weeks following surgery

    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).

  14. Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes as measured by PROMIS-29

    Time frame: 3 months following surgery

    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).

  15. Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes as measured by PROMIS-29

    Time frame: 6 months following surgery

    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).

  16. Percentage of participants reporting functional outcomes as measured by PROMIS-29

    Time frame: 12 months following surgery

    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).

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Other

Collaborators

  • Medtronic

Registry information

Official study title

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

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
Mar 9, 2023
Registry last updated
May 13, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.