Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why spine surgeons subspecializing in total disc replacement (TDR) performed lumbar fusion rather than TDR.
Methods
The study was based on a consecutive series of 515 patients undergoing lumbar TDR or fusion during a 5-year period by three surgeons specializing in TDR. For each fusion patient, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded.
Results
TDR was performed in 65.4% (n = 337) of patients and the remaining 34.6% (n = 178) underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF ± posterior instrumentation). Of the 178 fusion patients, the most common reason for fusion was combined factors related to severe degenerative changes (n = 59, 11.5% of the study population). The second most common reason was > Grade 1 spondylolisthesis (n = 32, 6.2%), followed by insurance non-coverage (n = 24, 4.7%), and osteopenia/osteoporosis (n = 13, 2.5%). Fusion patients were significantly older than TDR patients (52.5 vs. 41.6 years; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to gender (41.2% female vs. 43.8% female, p > 0.05) or the percentage of patients with single-level surgery (61.2% vs. 56.7%, p > 0.05).
Conclusion
The most common reason for not performing lumbar TDR was related to anatomic factors that may compromise stability of the operated segment and/or TDR functionality. The older age of fusion patients may be related to these factors. This study found that many patients are appropriate candidates for lumbar TDR. However, even among TDR subspecialists, fusion is preferred when there are factors that cannot be addressed with TDR and/or may compromise implant functionality.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Zigler JE, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 17(6):493–501. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.SPINE11498
Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ et al (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charite artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9(5):374–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.007
Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH, Schranck FW, Copay AG (2019) Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: 5-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick DISC investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine 31(3):347–356. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.spine181037
Radcliff K, Spivak J, Darden B 2nd, Janssen M, Bernard T, Zigler J (2018) Five-year reoperation rates of 2-level lumbar total disk replacement versus fusion: Results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Clin Spine Surg 31(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000476
Delamarter R, Zigler JE, Balderston RA, Cammisa FP, Goldstein JA, Spivak JM (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption study of the ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: Results at twenty-four months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(8):1–11. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00680
Garcia R Jr, Yue JJ, Blumenthal S et al (2015) Lumbar total disc replacement for discogenic low back pain: two-year outcomes of the activl multicenter randomized controlled ide clinical trial. Spine 40(24):1873–1881. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001245
Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M (2008) Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine 33(2):123–131. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816043af
Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD et al (2005) A Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charite Artificial Disc versus lumbar fusion: Part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30(14):1565–1575. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e
Wong DA, Annesser B, Birney T, Lamond R, Kumar A, Johnson S, Jatana S, Ghiselli G (2007) Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis. Spine J 7(1):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.012
Leahy M, Zigler JE, Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF, Sachs BL (2008) Comparison of results of total disc replacement in postdiscectomy patients versus patients with no previous lumbar surgery. Spine 33(15):1690–1693. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bd2f0
McAfee PC (2004) The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):177S-181S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.003
Buttner-Janz K, Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD (2014) Indications for lumbar total disc replacement: selecting the right patient with the right indication for the right total disc. Int J Spine Surg 8:1–19. https://doi.org/10.14444/1012
Zigler JE, Ohnmeiss DD (2006) Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty. Semin Spine Surg 18:40–46
Chin KR (2007) Epidemiology of indications and contraindications to total disc replacement in an academic practice. Spine J 7(4):392–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.08.009
Huang RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr (2004) The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine 29(22):2538–2541. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000144829.57885.20
Weinstein M, Denhoy R, Krishnan A (2003) Disruptive medical technologies. The next big thing in spine. North American Equity Research, JP Morgan
Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ (2004) Assessing the potential impact of total disc arthroplasty on surgeon practice patterns in North America. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):195S-201S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.009
Fras CI, Auerbach JD (2008) Prevalence of lumbar total disc replacement candidates in a community-based spinal surgery practice. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(2):126–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180621589
Quirno M, Goldstein JA, Bendo JA, Kim Y, Spivak JM (2011) The incidence of potential candidates for total disc replacement among lumbar and cervical fusion patient populations. Asian Spine J 5(4):213–219. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2011.5.4.213
Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al (2007) Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption study of the Prodisc-L Total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32(11):1155–1162. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318054e377
Hart RA, DePasse JM, Daniels AH (2017) Failure to Launch: What the rejection of lumbar total disk replacement tells us about American spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 30(6):E759–E764. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000415
Salzmann SN, Plais N, Shue J, Girardi FP (2017) Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10(2):153–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9397-4
Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Marnay T (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(3):490–496. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.C.01345
Glenn JS, Yaker J, Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD (2011) Anterior discectomy and total disc replacement for three patients with multiple recurrent lumbar disc herniations. Spine J 11(9):e1–e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.07.030
Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 31(17):1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000228780.06569.e8
Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN, Sachs BL, Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD (2003) Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):352–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200308000-00007
Funding
No funding was received to support this study or the preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
This study was reviewed and cleared by at IRB. In relation to lumbar disc replacement, Zigler is a consultant to Aesculap and Centinel Spine; Guyer is a consultant to Aesculap; Blumenthal is a consultant and does speaking/teaching for Aesculap and owns stock in Centinel Spine (< 1%); Shellock is a consultant for Centinel Spine; Satin and Ohnmeiss have nothing to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zigler, J.E., Guyer, R.D., Blumenthal, S.L. et al. In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration?. Eur Spine J 31, 2607–2611 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07282-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07282-z