European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 2114–2126 | Cite as

Five-year results of lumbar disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry

  • Emin Aghayev
  • Christian Etter
  • Christian Bärlocher
  • Friedrich Sgier
  • Philippe Otten
  • Paul Heini
  • Oliver Hausmann
  • Gianluca Maestretti
  • Martin Baur
  • François Porchet
  • Thomas M. Markwalder
  • Stefan Schären
  • Michal Neukamp
  • Christoph Röder
Original Article



The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health demanded a nationwide HTA registry for lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA), to decide about its reimbursement. The goal of the SWISS spine registry is to generate evidence about the safety and efficiency of lumbar TDA.


Two hundred forty-eight cases treated between 3-2005 and 6-2006, who were eligible for the 5-year follow-up were included in the study. Follow-up rates for 3–6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years were 85.9, 77.0, 44.0 and 51.2 %, respectively. Outcome measures were back and leg pain, medication consumption, quality of life, intraoperative and postoperative complication and revision rates. Additionally, segmental mobility, ossification, adjacent and distant segment degeneration were analysed at the 5-year follow-up.


There was a significant, clinically relevant and lasting reduction of back (preop/postop 73/29 VAS points) and leg pain (preop/postop VAS 55/22) and a consequently decreased analgesics consumption and quality of life improvement (preop/postop 0.30/0.76 EQ-5D score points) until 5 years after surgery. The rates for intraoperative and early postoperative complications were 4.4 and 3.2 %, respectively. The overall complication rate during five postoperative years was 23.4 %, and the adjacent segment degeneration rate was 10.7 %. In 4.4 % of patients, a revision surgery was performed. Cumulative survivorship probability for a revision/re-intervention-free 5-year postoperative course was 90.4 %. At the 5-year follow-up, the average range of motion of the mobile segments (86.8 %) was 9.7°. In 43.9 % of patients, osteophytes at least potentially affecting the range of motion were seen.


Lumbar TDA appeared as efficient in long-term pain alleviation, consequent reduction of pain medication consumption and improvement of quality of life. The procedure also appeared sufficiently safe, but surgeons have to be aware of a list of potential adverse events. The outcome is stable over the 5-year postoperative period. The vast majority of treated segments remained mobile after 5 years, although almost half of patients showed osteophytes.


SWISSspine TDA Disc arthroplasty Lumbar disc prosthesis Long-term follow-up 



The authors are thankful to the SWISSspine registry group who made this research possible by populating the database with their valuable and much appreciated entries. Among others, data of the following colleagues were used in the study: Etter C (n = 26), Bärlocher C (n = 24), Sgier F (n = 24), Huber J (n = 17), Otten P (n = 15), Heini P (n = 13), Hausmann O (n = 12), Maestretti G (n = 11), Baur M (n = 9), Porchet F (n = 9), Markwalder T (n = 8), Renella R (n = 8), Schaeren S (n = 6), Self T (n = 6), Schwarzenbach O (n = 5), Kast E (n = 4), Kleinstück F (n = 4), Lattig F (n = 4), Min K (n = 4), Schizas C (n = 4), Berlemann U (n = 3), Grob D (n = 3), Hasdemir M (n = 3), Marchesi D (n = 3), Aebi M (n = 2), Binggeli R (n = 2), Boscherini D (n = 2), Favre J (n = 2), Forster T (n = 2), Jeanneret B (n = 2), Moulin P (n = 2), Tessitore E (n = 2), Boos N (n = 1), Cathrein P (n = 1), Kroeber M (n = 1), Payer M (n = 1), Ramadan A (n = 1), Stoll T (n = 1), Wernli F (n = 1). Funded by the AO Foundation start-up-grant S-10-41A.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Mayer HM, Korge A (2002) Non-fusion technology in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders: facts, questions, challenges. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S85–S91PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zigler JE, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. J Neurosurg Spine 17:493–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 9:374–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH (2011) Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1600–E1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aghayev E, Elfering A, Schizas C, Mannion AF, Group SWR (2014) Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J 14(6):916–924. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.446 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1576–1583 (discussion E1388–1590)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skold 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(10):2288–2295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van de Kelft E, Verguts L (2012) Clinical outcome of monosegmental total disc replacement for lumbar disc disease with ball-and-socket prosthesis (Maverick): prospective study with four-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78:355–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 15:183–195PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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) 32:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meir AR, Freeman BJ, Fraser RD, Fowler SM (2013) Ten-year survival and clinical outcome of the AcroFlex lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. Spine J 13:13–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blondel B, Tropiano P, Gaudart J, Marnay T (2011) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement regarding various aetiologies of the disc degeneration: a study with a 2-year minimal follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E313–E319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 18:851–861PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zweig T, Aghayev E, Melloh M, Dietrich D, Dietrich D, Roder C, SWISSspine Registry Group (2012) Influence of preoperative leg pain and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 6):S729–S736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aghayev E, Roder C, Zweig T, Etter C, Schwarzenbach O (2010) Benchmarking in the SWISSspine registry: results of 52 Dynardi lumbar total disc replacements compared with the data pool of 431 other lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 19(12):2190–2199PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aghayev E, Henning J, Munting E, Diel P, Moulin P, Roder C, Swissspine, Spine Tango Registry Groups (2012) Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries. Eur Spine J 21:1640–1647PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    IEFM (2014) University of Bern.
  18. 18.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J, Williams E, Yu-Yahiro J (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guyer RD, Tromanhauser SG, Regan JJ (2007) An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion. Spine J 7:558–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ianuzzi A, Schmier J, Todd L, Isaza J, Albert TJ (2010) National revision burden for lumbar total disc replacement in the United States: epidemiologic and economic perspectives. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(6):690–696. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d0fabb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levin DA, Bendo JA, Quirno M, Errico T, Goldstein J, Spivak J (2007) Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2905–2909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zigler JE, Glenn J, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 17:504–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berg S, Tropp HT, Leivseth G (2011) Disc height and motion patterns in the lumbar spine in patients operated with total disc replacement or fusion for discogenic back pain. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Spine J 11:991–998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park SJ, Kang KJ, Shin SK, Chung SS, Lee CS (2011) Heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disc replacement. Int Orthop 35:1197–1201PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lemaire JP, Carrier H, el Sariali H, Skalli W, Lavaste F (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Eng M, McAfee PC, Holsapple GA, Adams KA (2007) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. JBJS Am 89:82–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boss OL, Tomasi SO, Baurle B, Sgier F, Hausmann ON (2013) Lumbar total disc replacement: correlation of clinical outcome and radiological parameters. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155(10):1923–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wei J, Song Y, Sun L, Lv C (2013) Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop 37(7):1315–1325PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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
  30. 30.
    McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS, Moore SV, Regan JJ, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, Fedder IL, Tortolani PJ, Cunningham B (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 (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1217–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Markwalder TM, Wenger M, Marbacher S (2011) A 6.5-year follow-up of 14 patients who underwent ProDisc total disc arthroplasty for combined long-standing degenerative lumbar disc disease and recent disc herniation. J Clin Neurosci 18(12):1677–1681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ross R, Mirza AH, Norris HE, Khatri M (2007) Survival and clinical outcome of SB Charite III disc replacement for back pain. JBJS Br 89:785–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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 17:36–43PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Inamasu J, Guiot BH (2006) Vascular injury and complication in neurosurgical spine surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148(4):375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lindley EM, McBeth ZL, Henry SE, Cooley R, Burger EL, Cain CM, Patel VV (2012) Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1785–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mayer HM, Siepe CJ (2011) Prosthetic total disk replacement––can we learn from total hip replacement? Orthop Clin N Am 42(4):543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neukamp M, Perler G, Pigott T, Munting E, Aebi M, Roder C (2013) Spine Tango annual report 2012. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2943-x (in press)
  38. 38.
    Aghayev E, Barlocher C, Sgier F, Hasdemir M, Steinsiepe KF, Wernli F, Porchet F, Hausmann O, Ramadan A, Maestretti G, Ebeling U, Neukamp M, Roder C (2013) Five-year results of cervical disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry. Eur Spine J 22(8):1723–1730PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Breakwell LM (2013) Understanding the need for spinal registries: Lee Breakwell reviews the importance of registries in spinal research and explains why British Association of Spinal Surgeons (BASS) has decided to set up its own registry. Eur Spine J 22(1):S5–S6. doi: 10.1007//s00586-013-2666-z
  40. 40.
    Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, Birkmeyer N, Herkowitz H, Longley M, Lenke L, Emery S, Hu SS (2009) Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. JBJS Am 91:1295–1304PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rohlmann A, Lauterborn S, Dreischarf M, Schmidt H, Putzier M, Strube P, Zander T (2013) Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 1: misalignment of the vertebrae adjacent to a total disc replacement affects the facet joint and facet capsule forces in a probabilistic finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 22(10):2271–2278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zweig T, Hemmeler C, Aghayev E, Melloh M, Etter C, Roder C (2011) Influence of preoperative nucleus pulposus status and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:275PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Diel P, Reuss W, Aghayev E, Moulin P, Roder C, Group SWR (2010) SWISSspine-a nationwide health technology assessment registry for balloon kyphoplasty: methodology and first results. Spine J 10:961–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emin Aghayev
    • 1
  • Christian Etter
    • 2
  • Christian Bärlocher
    • 3
  • Friedrich Sgier
    • 4
  • Philippe Otten
    • 5
  • Paul Heini
    • 6
  • Oliver Hausmann
    • 4
  • Gianluca Maestretti
    • 7
  • Martin Baur
    • 8
  • François Porchet
    • 9
  • Thomas M. Markwalder
    • 10
  • Stefan Schären
    • 11
  • Michal Neukamp
    • 1
  • Christoph Röder
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Evaluative Research in MedicineBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Hirslanden ClinicAarauSwitzerland
  3. 3.Stephanshorn HospitalSt. GallenSwitzerland
  4. 4.St. Anna ClinicLucerneSwitzerland
  5. 5.FribourgSwitzerland
  6. 6.Sonnenhof ClinicBernSwitzerland
  7. 7.Cantonal Hospital of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland
  8. 8.Cantonal Hospital of LuzernLucerneSwitzerland
  9. 9.Schulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland
  10. 10.Hirslanden Clinic, Salem-SpitalBernSwitzerland
  11. 11.University Hospital of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations