Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have sightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year follow-up. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. An H, Boden SD, Kang J et al (2003) Summary statement: emerging techniques for treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease. Spine 28:S24–S25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:1512–1519

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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 30:1565–1575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Booth DC, Bridwell KH, Eisenberg BA et al (1999) Minimum 5-year results of degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and instrumented posterior fusion. Spine 24:1721–1727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS (2004) The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J 4:681–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH et al (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine 21:549–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Csecsei GI, Klekner AP, Dobai J et al (2000) Posterior interbody fusion using laminectomy bone and transpedicular screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Surg Neurol 53:2–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB (2005) Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36:301–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LE et al (2003) ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine 28:S167–S175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickman CA, Yahiro MA, Lu HTC et al (1994) Surgical treatment alternatives for fixation of unstable fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. A meta-analysis. Spine 19:S2266–S2273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dimar JR 2nd, Beck DJ, Glassman SD et al (2001) Posterior lumbar interbody cages do not augment segmental biomechanical stability. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 30:636–639

    Google Scholar 

  14. Freeman BJ, Davenport J (2006) Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:S439–S447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus non-surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 26:2521–2534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P et al (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish Lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fujiya M, Saita M, Kaneda K et al (1990) Clinical study on stability of combined distraction and compression rod instrumentation with posterolateral fusion for unstable degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 15:1216–1222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charité intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg Spine 1:143–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001352

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 9:374–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Hochschuler SH et al (2004) Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: data from two investigational centers. Spine J 4:S252–S259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Haher TR, Merola A, Zpinick RI et al (1995) Meta-analysis of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A 35 year English literature review of 11, 000 patients. Spine 20:1575–1584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Han X, Zhu Y, Cui C et al (2009) A meta-analysis of circumferential fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. Spine 34:E618–E625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M et al (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  28. Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM et al (1995) Efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Pain 63:279–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C et al (2006) Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25:82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36:315–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee CK, Langrana NA (1984) Lumbosacral spinal fusion: a biomechanical study. Spine 9:574–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali el-H et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Madan SS, Boeree NR (2003) Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 12:567–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1576–1583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S et al (2003) SB Charité disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:424–433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS et al (2006) Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine 31:1217–1226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oxland TR, Hoffer Z, Nydegger T et al (2000) A comparative biomechanical investigation of anterior lumbar interbody cages: central and bilateral approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 823:383–393

    Google Scholar 

  39. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 29:1938–1944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pellisé F, Puig O, Rivas A et al (2002) Low fusion rate after L5–S1 laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion using twin stand-alone carbon fiber cages. Spine 27:1665–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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 33:123–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K et al (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 31:1923–1932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M (2002) Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 11:S65–S84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tiusanen H, Schlenzka D, Seitsalo S et al (1996) Results of a trial of anterior or circumferential lumbar fusion in the treatment of severe isthmic spondylolisthesis in young patients. J Pediatr Orthop B 5:190–194

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tokes IA, Wilder DG, Frymoyer JW et al (1981) 1980 Volvo award in clinical sciences. Assessment of patients with low-back pain by biplanar radiographic measurement of intervertebral motion. Spine 6:233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C et al (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 28:1290–1299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN et al (2003) Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:352–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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 32:1155–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, 155 Nan Jing Bei Street, Shenyang, 110001, Liaoning, China

    Wu Yajun, Zhu Yue, Han Xiuxin & Cui Cui

Authors
  1. Wu Yajun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhu Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Han Xiuxin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cui Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhu Yue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yajun, W., Yue, Z., Xiuxin, H. et al. A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 19, 1250–1261 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1394-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1394-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation