Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maverick total disc arthroplasty performs well at 10 years follow-up: a prospective study with HRQL and balance analysis

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

Abstract

Purpose

The treatment of low back pain associated to Disc Degenerative Disease (DDD) is still controversial. Segmental Fusion is the gold standard, but many studies have reported that motion-preserving devices bring substantial clinical benefits to patients. Concerns on the associated complications and on the long-term clinical effectiveness of such instrumentations are still present and have led recently to a decrease of the number of Lumbar Total Disk Replacements (TDR). The objective of this prospective study is to present the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Maverick Lumbar disk prostheses (Medtronic, TE, Memphis, USA) at long-term follow-up.

Methods

Prospective, single center study of clinical outcome of the treatment with Maverick lumbar Prosthesis of patients with low back pain from DDD resistant to conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively and at 3 months, 2 and 10 years post-operatively. Patients were examined preoperatively and at 3 months, 2 and 10 years post-operatively. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire were assessed to study clinical outcomes. Radiographic studies allowed measurements of range of motion, adjacent segment disease and pelvic and lumbar parameters.

Results

From an initial cohort of 87 patients who underwent TDR between 2003 and 2007 with the Maverick prosthesis, 61 were available at Final follow-up (70%). The clinical outcomes measured by VAS and ODI showed a significant improvement in all the postoperative stages of the follow-up (FU). At 10 years-FU, ODI experienced a mean decrease of 21.1 points, VAS for back pain decreased up to 3.85 and substantial clinical benefit was reached for 55.6% of the patients. Although Mobility of the prosthesis was preserved in 76.8% of the cases, TDR was not clearly protective against ALD.

Conclusions

A significant, clinically relevant, and lasting reduction of back pain has been achieved in patients who underwent a total disk arthroplasty or a Hybrid construct with Maverik prosthesis. TDR is a safe and effective technique to decrease pain in patients with one or two levels of DDD.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R (2010) The Epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:769–781. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K et al (2014) Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up. Spine J 14:1417–1431. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sköld C, Tropp H, Berg S (2013) Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 22:2288–2295. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2926-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Aghayev E, Etter C, Bärlocher C et al (2014) Five-year results of lumbar disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry. Eur Spine J 23:2114–2126. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3418-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu S, Hai Y, Kong C et al (2015) An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 24:2056–2064. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3939-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS et al (2016) Surgical results of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): analysis of functional outcome, survival time, and complication. Spine J 16(3):322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: 2-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin N Am 36:315–322. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aunoble S, Meyrat R, Al Sawad Y et al (2010) Hybrid construct for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 19:290–296. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1182-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pekkanen L, Neva MH, Kautiainen H et al (2013) Disability and health-related quality of life in patients undergoing spinal fusion: a comparison with a general population sample. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:211. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chiou WK, Lee YH, Chen WJ et al (1996) A non-invasive protocol for the determination of lumbar spine mobility. Clin Biomech 11:474–480. doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(96)00035-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mimura M, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR et al (1994) Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1371–1380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S et al (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E803–E812. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Aoki Y, Nakajima A, Takahashi H et al (2015) Influence of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch on surgical outcomes of short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:213. doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0676-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4485-5

    Google Scholar 

  15. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR et al (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and Pain Scales. Spine J 8:968–974. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH et al (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:1839–1847. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 32:661–666. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000257554.67505.45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Park C-K, Ryu K-S, Lee K-Y, Lee H-J (2012) Clinical outcome of lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-L in degenerative disc disease: minimum 5-year follow-up results at a single institute. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:672–677. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ecd85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87:490–496. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.01345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geisler FH, McAfee PC, Banco RJ et al (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter FDA IDE study of CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: effect at 5-year follow-up of prior surgery and prior discectomy on clinical outcomes following lumbar arthroplasty. SAS J 3(1):17–25. doi:10.1016/SASJ-2008-0019-RR

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RAM, Benzel EC (2014) Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 14:78–83

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, Van Royen BJ et al (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19:1262–1280. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1445-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Alahmadi H, Deutsch H (2014) Outcome of salvage lumbar fusion after lumbar arthroplasty. Asian Spine J 8:13–18. doi:10.4184/asj.2014.8.1.13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2003) Geometrical and mechanical analysis of lumbar lordosis in an asymptomatic population: proposed classification. Rev Chir orthopédique réparatrice l’appareil Mot 89:632–639

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthospine Department Pr Le Huec JC, Bordeaux University Hospital, 6th Floor, CHU Pellegrin, Place A Raba Leon, 33076, Bordeaux, France

    N. Plais, X. Thevenot, A. Cogniet, J. Rigal & J. C. Le Huec

Authors
  1. N. Plais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. X. Thevenot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Cogniet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Rigal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. C. Le Huec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. C. Le Huec.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Plais, N., Thevenot, X., Cogniet, A. et al. Maverick total disc arthroplasty performs well at 10 years follow-up: a prospective study with HRQL and balance analysis. Eur Spine J 27, 720–727 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5065-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5065-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation