Which Design and Biomaterial Factors Affect Clinical Wear Performance of Total Disc Replacements? A Systematic Review
- 1k Downloads
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsWear Debris Cervical Disc Total Disc Replacement Disc Replacement Artificial Disc
- 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
- 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.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook. Accessed January 1, 2014.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 22.Kurtz SM. The UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook. Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press; 2009.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 38.Tumialan LM, Gluf WM. Progressive vertebral body osteolysis after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:E973–978.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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