Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 12, pp 3759–3769 | Cite as

Which Design and Biomaterial Factors Affect Clinical Wear Performance of Total Disc Replacements? A Systematic Review

  • Sai Y. Veruva
  • Marla J. Steinbeck
  • Jeffrey Toth
  • Dominik D. Alexander
  • Steven M. KurtzEmail author
Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Implant Wear and Tribocorrosion of Total Joint Replacements

Abstract

Background

Total disc replacement was clinically introduced to reduce pain and preserve segmental motion of the lumbar and cervical spine. Previous case studies have reported on the wear and adverse local tissue reactions around artificial prostheses, but it is unclear how design and biomaterials affect clinical outcomes.

Questions/purposes

Which design and material factors are associated with differences in clinical wear performance (implant wear and periprosthetic tissue response) of (1) lumbar and (2) cervical total disc replacements?

Methods

We performed a systematic review on the topics of implant wear and periprosthetic tissue response using an advanced search in MEDLINE and Scopus electronic databases. Of the 340 references identified, 33 were retrieved for full-text evaluation, from which 16 papers met the inclusion criteria (12 on lumbar disc replacement and five on cervical disc replacement; one of the included studies reported on both lumbar and cervical disc replacement), which involved semiquantitative analysis of wear and adverse local tissue reactions along with a description of the device used. An additional three papers were located by searching bibliographies of key articles. There were seven case reports, three case series, two case-control studies, and seven analytical studies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) Scale was used to score case series and case-control studies, which yielded mean scores of 10.3 of 16 and 17.5 of 24, respectively. In general, the case series (three) and case-control (two) studies were of good quality.

Results

In lumbar regions, metal-on-polymer devices with mobile-bearing designs consistently generated small and large polymeric wear debris, triggering periprosthetic tissue activation of macrophages and giant cells, respectively. In the cervical regions, metal-on-polymer devices with fixed-bearing designs had similar outcomes. All metal-on-metal constructs tended to generate small metallic wear debris, which typically triggered an adaptive immune response of predominantly activated lymphocytes. There were no retrieval studies on one-piece prostheses.

Conclusions

This review provides evidence that design and biomaterials affect the type of wear and inflammation. However, clinical study design, followup, and analytical techniques differ among investigations, preventing us from drawing firm conclusions about the relationship between implant design and wear performance for both cervical and lumbar total disc replacement.

Keywords

Wear Debris Cervical Disc Total Disc Replacement Disc Replacement Artificial Disc 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson PA, Rouleau JP, Toth JM, Riew KD. A comparison of simulator-tested and -retrieved cervical disc prostheses. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1:202–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austen S, Punt IM, Cleutjens JP, Willems PC, Kurtz SM, MacDonald DW, van Rhijn LW, van Ooij A. Clinical, radiological, histological and retrieval findings of Activ-L and Mobidisc total disc replacements: a study of two patients. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(Suppl 4):S513–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baxter RM, Macdonald DW, Kurtz SM, Steinbeck MJ. Severe impingement of lumbar disc replacements increases the functional biological activity of polyethylene wear debris. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e751–759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr E Jr, Werner DJ, Jawahar A. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: a case report and literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:E262–265.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choma TJ, Miranda J, Siskey R, Baxter R, Steinbeck MJ, Kurtz SM. Retrieval analysis of a ProDisc-L total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord. 2009;22:290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung SK, Kim YE, Wang KC. Biomechanical effect of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement: a study with finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1281–1286.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook. Accessed January 1, 2014.
  8. 8.
    Cunningham BW, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, McAfee PC. General principles of total disc replacement arthroplasty: seventeen cases in a nonhuman primate model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:S118–124.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    David T. Revision of a Charite artificial disc 9.5 years in vivo to a new Charite artificial disc: case report and explant analysis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:507–511.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devin CJ, Myers TG, Kang JD. Chronic failure of a lumbar total disc replacement with osteolysis. Report of a case with nineteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2230–2234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fan H, Wu S, Wu Z, Wang Z, Guo Z. Implant failure of Bryan cervical disc due to broken polyurethane sheath: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E814–816.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Francois J, Coessens R, Lauweryns P. Early removal of a Maverick disc prosthesis: surgical findings and morphological changes. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73:122–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallo J, Raska M, Mrazek F, Petrek M. Bone remodeling, particle disease and individual susceptibility to periprosthetic osteolysis. Physiol Res. 2008;57:339–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Golish SR, Anderson PA. Bearing surfaces for total disc arthroplasty: metal-on-metal versus metal-on-polyethylene and other biomaterials. Spine J. 2012;12:693–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH. Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E1600–1611.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Harper ML, Chan FW, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ. Prospective study on serum metal levels in patients with metal-on-metal lumbar disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:741–746.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyer RD, Shellock J, MacLennan B, Hanscom D, Knight RQ, McCombe P, Jacobs JJ, Urban RM, Bradford DS, Ohnmeiss DD. Early failure of metal-on-metal artificial disc prostheses associated with lymphocytic reaction: diagnosis and treatment experience in four cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E492–497.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heuer F, Schmidt H, Klezl Z, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Stepwise reduction of functional spinal structures increase range of motion and change lordosis angle. J Biomech. 2007;40:271–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hujoel P. Grading the evidence: the core of EBD. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2009;9:122–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobs JJ, Hallab N, Urban RM, Wimmer MA. Wear particles. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:99–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurtz SM, Steinbeck M, Ianuzzi A, Van Ooij A, Punt IM, Isaza J, Ross ERS. Retrieval analysis of motion preserving spinal devices and periprosthetic tissues. SAS. 2009;3:161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurtz SM. The UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook. Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurtz SM, MacDonald D, Ianuzzi A, van Ooij A, Isaza J, Ross ER, Regan J. The natural history of polyethylene oxidation in total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:2369–2377.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kurtz SM, Toth JM, Siskey R, Ciccarelli L, Macdonald D, Isaza J, Lanman T, Punt I, Steinbeck M, Goffin J, van Ooij A. The latest lessons learned from retrieval analyses of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, metal-on-metal, and alternative bearing total disc replacements. Semin Spine Surg. 2012;24:57–70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lazennec J-Y, Even J, Skalli W, Rakover J-P, Brusson A, Rousseau M-A. Clinical outcomes, radiologic kinematics, and effects on sagittal balance of the 6-degrees-of-freedom LP-ESP® lumbar disc prosthesis. Spine J. 2013 Nov 19 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lebl DR, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP, Wright T, Abjornson C. In vivo functional performance of failed Prodisc-L devices: retrieval analysis of lumbar total disc replacements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E1209–1217.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lebl DR, Cammisa FP Jr, Girardi FP, Wright T, Abjornson C. The mechanical performance of cervical total disc replacements in vivo: prospective retrieval analysis of prodisc-C devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:2151–2160.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lehman R, Bevevino AJ, Brewer DD, Skelly AC, Anderson PA. A systematic review of cervical artificial disc replacement wear characteristics and durability. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012;3:31–38.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Link HD, Keller A. Biomechanics of total disc replacement. In: Buttner-Janz K, Hochschuler SH, McAfee PC, eds. The Artificial Disc. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2003:33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K, Blumenthal S, Guyer RD, Dmietriev A, Maxwell JH, Regan JJ, Isaza J. 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). 2005;30:1576–1583; discussion E1588–1590.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. US Food and Drug Administration. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/implantsandprosthetics/metalonmetalhipimplants/default.htm. Accessed January 1, 2013.
  32. 32.
    O’Leary P, Nicolakis M, Lorenz MA, Voronov LI, Zindrick MR, Ghanayem A, Havey RM, Carandang G, Sartori M, Gaitanis IN, Fronczak S, Patwardhan AG. Response of Charite total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J. 2005;5:590–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Punt I, Baxter R, van Ooij A, Willems P, van Rhijn L, Kurtz S, Steinbeck M. Submicron sized ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear particle analysis from revised SB Charite III total disc replacements. Acta Biomater. 2011;7:3404–3411.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Punt IM, Austen S, Cleutjens JP, Kurtz SM, ten Broeke RH, van Rhijn LW, Willems PC, van Ooij A. Are periprosthetic tissue reactions observed after revision of total disc replacement comparable to the reactions observed after total hip or knee revision surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:150–159.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scholz J, Woolf CJ. The neuropathic pain triad: neurons, immune cells and glia. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10:1361–1368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Neurosurg. 2003;73:712–716.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stieber JR, Donald III GD. Early failure of lumbar disc replacement: case report and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord. 2006;19:55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tumialan LM, Gluf WM. Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E973–978.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van den Broek PR, Huyghe JM, Wilson W, Ito K. Design of next generation total disk replacements. J Biomech. 2012;45:134–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Ooij A, Kurtz SM, Stessels F, Noten H, van Rhijn L. Polyethylene wear debris and long-term clinical failure of the Charite disc prosthesis: a study of 4 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:223–229.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord. 2003;16:369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zeh A, Becker C, Planert M, Lattke P, Wohlrab D. Time-dependent release of cobalt and chromium ions into the serum following implantation of the metal-on-metal Maverick type artificial lumbar disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:741–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zeh A, Planert M, Siegert G, Lattke P, Held A, Hein W. Release of cobalt and chromium ions into the serum following implantation of the metal-on-metal Maverick-type artificial lumbar disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:348–352.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    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. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1155–1162; discussion 1163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sai Y. Veruva
    • 1
  • Marla J. Steinbeck
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Toth
    • 2
  • Dominik D. Alexander
    • 3
  • Steven M. Kurtz
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Implant Research CenterDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryThe Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.Exponent, IncBoulderUSA
  4. 4.Exponent, IncPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations