Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Supplement 6, pp 729–736 | Cite as

Influence of preoperative leg pain and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry

  • Thomas Zweig
  • Emin Aghayev
  • Markus Melloh
  • Daniel Dietrich
  • Christoph Röder
  • SWISSspine Registry Group
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Currently, many pre-conditions are regarded as relative or absolute contraindications for lumbar total disc replacement (TDR). Radiculopathy is one among them. In Switzerland it is left to the surgeon’s discretion when to operate if he adheres to a list of pre-defined indications. Contraindications, however, are less clearly specified. We hypothesized that, the extent of pre-operative radiculopathy results in different benefits for patients treated with mono-segmental lumbar TDR. We used patient perceived leg pain and its correlation with physician recorded radiculopathy for creating the patient groups to be compared.

Methods

The present study is based on the dataset of SWISSspine, a government mandated health technology assessment registry. Between March 2005 and April 2009, 577 patients underwent either mono- or bi-segmental lumbar TDR, which was documented in a prospective observational multicenter mode. A total of 416 cases with a mono-segmental procedure were included in the study. The data collection consisted of pre-operative and follow-up data (physician based) and clinical outcomes (NASS form, EQ-5D). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted with patients’ self-indicated leg pain and the surgeon-based diagnosis “radiculopathy”, as marked on the case report forms. As a result, patients were divided into two groups according to the severity of leg pain. The two groups were compared with regard to the pre-operative patient characteristics and pre- and post-operative pain on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and quality of life using general linear modeling.

Results

The optimal ROC model revealed a leg pain threshold of 40 ≤ VAS > 40 for the absence or the presence of “radiculopathy”. Demographics in the resulting two groups were well comparable. Applying this threshold, the mean pre-operative leg pain level was 16.5 points in group 1 and 68.1 points in group 2 (p < 0.001). Back pain levels differed less with 63.6 points in group 1 and 72.6 in group 2 (p < 0.001). Pre-operative quality of life showed considerable differences with an 0.44 EQ-5D score in group 1 and 0.29 in group 2 (p < 0.001, possible score range −0.6 to 1). At a mean follow-up time of 8 months, group 1 showed a mean leg pain improvement of 3.6 points and group 2 of 41.1 points (p < 0.001). Back pain relief was 35.6 and 39.1 points, respectively (p = 0.27). EQ-5D score improvement was 0.27 in group 1 and 0.41 in group 2 (p = 0.11).

Conclusions

Patients labeled as having radiculopathy (group 2) do mostly have pre-operative leg pain levels ≥ 40. Applying this threshold, the patients with pre-operative leg pain do also have more severe back pain and a considerably lower quality of life. Their net benefit from the lumbar TDR is higher and they do have similar post-operative back and leg pain levels as well as the quality of life as patients without pre-operative leg pain. Although randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings, they put leg pain and radiculopathy into perspective as absolute contraindications for TDR.

Keywords

Lumbar spine Leg pain Radiculopathy Total disc replacement Registry SWISSspine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of all those who have dedicated their time and resources for participation in the SWISSspine registry. We acknowledge their involvement to the generation of a sound base of scientific evidence for enabling informed decision making in the Swiss health care system.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Bydon A (2009) Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. Neurosurgery 64:338–344. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000337574.58662.E2 (discussion 344–335)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim, Park KW, Hwang C, Lee YK, Koo KH, Chang BS, Lee CK, Lee DH (2009) Recurrence rate of lumbar disc herniation after open discectomy in active young men. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:24–29. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818f9116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asch HL, Lewis PJ, Moreland DB, Egnatchik JG, Yu YJ, Clabeaux DE, Hyland AH (2002) Prospective multiple outcomes study of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy: should 75 to 80% success rates be the norm? J Neurosurg 96:34–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, Garcia R, Regan JJ, Ohnmeiss DD (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. doi: 00007632-200507150-00003 (discussion E1387–1591)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K, Blumenthal S, Guyer RD, Dmietriev A, Maxwell JH, Regan JJ, Isaza J (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, (discussion E1388–E1590)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO, Haider TT, Cammisa F, Zuchermann J, Balderston R, Kitchel S, Foley K, Watkins R, Bradford D, Yue J, Yuan H, Herkowitz H, Geiger D, Bendo J, Peppers T, Sachs B, Girardi F, Kropf M, Goldstein J (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. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318054e377 (discussion 1163)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, Gross C, Tohtz SW, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, Perka C, Kandziora F (2006) Charite total disc replacement–clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1022-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McAfee PC (2004) The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4:177S–181S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chin KR (2007) Epidemiology of indications and contraindications to total disc replacement in an academic practice. Spine J 7:392–398. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.08.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 7:5–11. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH, Holt RT, Jenis LG, Majd ME, Regan JJ, Tromanhauser SG, Wong DC, Blumenthal SL (2008) 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. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 16:352–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gornet M, Burkus JK, Mathews HH, Dryer RF, Peloza J (2007) MAVERICK total disc replacement vs. anterior lumbar interbody fusion with the INFUSE bone graft/LT-CAGE device: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter IDE trial. Spine J 7(5):1S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.07.005
  15. 15.
    Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Zweig T, Ferguson S, Raimondi MT, Lamartina C, Brayda-Bruno M, Fornari M (2008) Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 17:1635–1650. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0811-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M (2002) Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S65–S84. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0474-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C (2007) Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23:425–432. doi: 10.1017/S0266462307070651 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Roder C (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0934-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hochschuler SH, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL (2002) Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S106–S110. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0439-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW, Kurtz SM, Antonis J, Schurink GW, van Ooij A (2008) Complications and reoperations of the SB Charite lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 17:36–43. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0506-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Ooij A, Schurink GW, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2007) Findings in 67 patients with recurrent or persistent symptoms after implantation of a disc prosthesis for low back pain. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 151:1577–1584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross R, Mirza AH, Norris HE, Khatri M (2007) Survival and clinical outcome of SB Charite III disc replacement for back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:785–789. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B6.18806 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 31:1923–1932. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000228780.06569.e8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fraser RD, Ross ER, Lowery GL, Freeman BJ, Dolan M (2004) AcroFlex design and results. Spine J 4:245S–251S. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Röder PMC, Aebi M (2007) The SWISSspine Registry. In: Brayda-Bruno SGLH (ed) Nonfusion Technologies in Spine Surgery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, NY, pp 267–275Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mirza SK (2005) Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine 30:1561–1564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fras CI, Auerbach JD (2008) Prevalence of lumbar total disc replacement candidates in a community-based spinal surgery practice. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:126–129. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180621589 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    German JW, Foley KT (2005) Disc arthroplasty in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30:S60–S67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Johnson JP, Mullin B (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 Charite intervertebral disc: invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves. J Neurosurg Spine 1:143–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Valat JP, Genevay S, Marty M, Rozenberg S, Koes B (2010) Sciatica. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:241–252. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Tulder M, Peul W, Koes B (2010) Sciatica: what the rheumatologist needs to know. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:139–145. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2010.3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Zweig
    • 1
  • Emin Aghayev
    • 1
  • Markus Melloh
    • 1
  • Daniel Dietrich
    • 2
  • Christoph Röder
    • 1
  • SWISSspine Registry Group
  1. 1.Institute for Evaluative Research in MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial ScienceUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations