Influence of preoperative leg pain and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry
- 226 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsLumbar spine Leg pain Radiculopathy Total disc replacement Registry SWISSspine
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
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 26.(2009) http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/charite_classaction.html. In. Lawsou, Santa Cruz (CA)
- 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
- 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