Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation
- 698 Downloads
The role of fusion of lumbar motion segments for the treatment of axial low back pain (LBP) from lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) without any true deformities or instabilities remains controversially debated. In an attempt to avoid previously published and fusion-related negative side effects, motion preserving technologies such as total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) have been introduced. The adequate extent of preoperative DDD for TDR remains unknown, the number of previously published studies is scarce and the limited data available reveal contradictory results. The goal of this current analysis was to perform a prospective histological, X-ray and MRI investigation of the index-segment’s degree of DDD and to correlate these data with each patient’s pre- and postoperative clinical outcome parameters from an ongoing prospective clinical trial with ProDisc II (Synthes, Paoli, USA).
Materials and methods
Nucleus pulposus (NP) and annulus fibrosus (AF) changes were evaluated according to a previously validated quantitative histological degeneration score (HDS). X-ray evaluation included assessment of the mean, anterior and posterior disc space height (DSH). MRI investigation of DDD was performed on a 5-scale grading system. The prospective clinical outcome assessment included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores as well as the patient’s subjective satisfaction rates.
Data from 51 patients with an average follow-up of 50.5 months (range 6.1–91.9 months) were included in the study. Postoperative VAS and ODI scores improved significantly in comparison to preoperative levels (p < 0.002). A significant correlation and interdependence was established between various parameters of DDD preoperatively (p < 0.05). Degenerative changes of NP tissue samples were significantly more pronounced in comparison to those of AF material (p < 0.001) with no significant correlation between each other (p > 0.05). Preoperatively, the extent of DDD was not significantly correlated with the patient’s symptomatology (p > 0.05). No negative influence was associated with increasing stages of DDD on the postoperative clinical outcome parameters following TDR (p > 0.05). Increasing stages of DDD in terms of lower DSH scores were not associated with inferior clinical results as outlined by postoperative VAS or ODI scores or the patient’s subjective outcome evaluation at the last FU examination (p > 0.05). Conversely, some potential positive effects on the postoperative outcome were observed in patients with advanced stages of preoperative DDD. Patients with more severe preoperative HDS scores of NP samples demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores during the early postoperative course (p = 0.02).
Increasing stages of DDD did not negatively impact on the outcome following TDR in a highly selected patient population. In particular, no preoperative DDD threshold value was identified from which an inferior postoperative outcome could have been deduced. Conversely, some positive effects on the postoperative outcome were detected in patients with advanced stages of DDD. Combined advantageous effects of progressive morphological structural rigidity of the index segment and restabilizing effects from larger distraction in degenerated segments may compensate for increasing axial rotational instability, one of TDR’s perceived disadvantages. Our data reveal a “therapeutic window” for TDR in a cohort of patients with various stages of DDD as long as preoperative facet joint complaints or degenerative facet arthropathies can be excluded and stringent preoperative decision making criteria are adhered to. Previously published absolute DSH values as contraindication against TDR should be reconsidered.
KeywordsTotal disc replacement Disc arthroplasty Disc degeneration Degenerative disc disease Histological degeneration
The authors of this study would like to thank Pauline Jansen van Rensburg of “The Language Laboratory”, Munich, for the proof reading and editing of this article.
Conflict of interest
- 2.Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML (1997) Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 76–81Google Scholar
- 10.Moshirfar A, Jenis LG, Spector LR, Burke PJ, Losina E, Katz JN, Rand FF, Tromanhauser SG, Banco RJ (2006) Computed tomography evaluation of superior-segment facet-joint violation after pedicle instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a midline surgical approach. Spine 31:2624–2629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, Garcia R Jr, 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 (discussion E1387–E1591)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.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 (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 9:374–386Google Scholar
- 21.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
- 24.Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO 3rd, 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 (discussion 1163)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Carragee EJ, Don AS, Hurwitz EL, Cuellar JM, Carrino J, Herzog R (2009) 2009 ISSLS Prize Winner: does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc: a ten-year matched cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2338–2345. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ab5432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Masuda K, Aota Y, Muehleman C, Imai Y, Okuma M, Thonar EJ, Andersson GB, An HS (2005) A novel rabbit model of mild, reproducible disc degeneration by an anulus needle puncture: correlation between the degree of disc injury and radiological and histological appearances of disc degeneration. Spine 30:5–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Bertagnoli R, Marnay T, Mayer HM (2003) The ProDisc book spine solutions GmbH. Tuttlingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- 58.Weiler C, Lopez-Ramos M, Mayer HM, Korge A, Siepe CJ, Wuertz K, Weiler V, Boos N, Nerlich AG (2011) Histological evidence for intervertebral disc degeneration in lumbar surgical disc tissue samples suggests statistical association to increased body mass index. BMC Res Notes 4:497. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-497
- 60.Hill T, Lewicki P (2007) Statistiks: methods and applications. StatSoft Inc., TulsaGoogle Scholar
- 66.Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan HF (1982) Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 110–123Google Scholar
- 67.Rohlmann A, Zander T, Schmidt H, Wilke HJ, Bergmann G (2006) Analysis of the influence of disc degeneration on the mechanical behaviour of a lumbar motion segment using the finite element method. J Biomech 39:2484–2490Google Scholar
- 68.Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Hadi TM, Pedersen KL, Lotz JC (2006) The instant axis of rotation influences facet forces at L5/S1 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Eur Spine J 15:299–307Google Scholar
- 74.de Schepper EI, Damen J, van Meurs JB, Ginai AZ, Popham M, Hofman A, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM (2010) The association between lumbar disc degeneration and low back pain: the influence of age, gender, and individual radiographic features. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:531–536. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aa5b33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 82.Cakir B, Richter M, Schmoelz W, Schmidt R, Reichel H, Wilke HJ (2009) Resect or not to resect: the role of posterior longitudinal ligament in lumbar total disc replacement. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1193-4
- 83.Demetropoulos CK, Sengupta DK, Knaub MA, Wiater BP, Abjornson C, Truumees E, Herkowitz HN (2010) Biomechanical evaluation of the kinematics of the cadaver lumbar spine following disc replacement with the ProDisc-L prosthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:26–31. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c4eb9a CrossRefGoogle Scholar