Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature

  • Review
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current evidence for total disc replacement was assessed by performing a systematic review of the published literature. This search identified two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two previous systematic reviews, seven prospective cohort studies, eleven retrospective cohort studies and eight case series. The RCTs involved the use of the Charité artificial disc and the Pro-Disc II total disc replacement. All papers analysed were classified according to their level of evidence as defined by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford, UK (www.cebm). For degenerative disc disease at L4/5 or L5/S1, both the clinical outcome and the incidence of major neurological complications following insertion of the Charité artificial disc were found to be equivalent to those observed following a single level anterior lumbar interbody fusion 2 years following surgery. However, only 57% of patients undergoing total disc replacement and 46% of patients undergoing arthrodesis met the four criteria listed for success. The range of flexion/extension was restored and maintained with the Charité artificial disc. The role for two or three level disc replacement in the treatment of degenerative disc disease remains unproven. To date, no study has shown total disc replacement to be superior to spinal fusion in terms of clinical outcome. The long-term benefits of total disc replacement in preventing adjacent level disc degeneration have yet to be realised. Complications of total disc replacement may not be known for many years. There are numerous types of disc prostheses and designs under study or in development. Well designed prospective RCTs are needed before approval and widespread application of this technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S (2002) Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 11:S130–S136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertagnoli R, Yue J, Shah RV, et al (2005) The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis. Spine 30:2192–2199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertagnoli R, Yue J, Fenk-Mayer A, et al (2006) Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up. J Neurosurg Spine 4:91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al (2005) A prospective, randomised multi-centre food & drug administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion. Part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buttner-Janz K, Hahn S, Schikora K, et al (2002) Principles for successful application of the Link SB Charité artificial disc. Orthopade 31:441–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Buttner-Janz K, Schellnack K, Zippel H, et al (1988) Experience and results with the SB Charite lumbar intervertebral endoprosthesis. Z Llin Med 43:1785–1789

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of two years. Spine 21:995–1000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. David T (2005) Revision of a Charité artificial disc 9.5 years in vivo to a new Charité artificial disc: a case report and explant analysis. Eur Spine J 14:507–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. de Kleuver M, Oner FC, Jacobs WCH (2003) Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 12:108–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB (2005) Clinical results of ProDisc II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States Clinical Trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36:301–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delamarter RB, David MF, Linda EAK (2003) ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine 28:S167–S175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, et al (2005) Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. Br Med J 330:1233–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fraser RD, Ross ER, Lowery GL, Freeman BJ, et al (2004) Lumbar disc replacement. AcroFlex design and results. Spine J 4:245S–251S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus non-surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 26:2521–2534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, et al (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 multicentre, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 1:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. German JW, Foley KT (2005) Disc arthroplasty in the management of the painful lumbar motion segement. Spine 30:S60–S67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Griffith SL, Shelokov AP, Buttner-Janz K, et al (1994) A multi-centre retrospective study of the clinical results of the link SB Charité intervertebral prosthesis. Spine 19:1842–1849

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, et al (2005) Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine 30:1407–1411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP, et al (2004) The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine 29:2538–2541

    Google Scholar 

  20. Interventional Procedure Guidance 100 (2004) Prosthetic intervertebral disc replacement. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. ISBN: 1-84257-817-0 (www.nice.org.uk)

  21. Kurtz SM, Peloza J, Sisky R, et al (2005) Analysis of a retrieved polyethylene total disc replacement component. Spine J 5:344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y, et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36:315–322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, et al (1997) Intervertebral disc prosthesis: results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 337:64–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc. A 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lui J, Ebraheim NA, Haman SP, et al (2006) Effect of the increase in the height of lumbar disc space on facet joint articulation area in sagittal plane. Spine 31:E198–E202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A, et al (2002) Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 11:S124–S130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mayer HM (2005) Total disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87-B:1029–1037

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mathew P, Blackman M, Redla S, et al (2005) Bilateral pedicle fractures following anterior dislocation of the polyethylene inlay of a ProDisc artificial disc replacement: a case report of an unusual complication. Spine 30:E311–E314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, et al (2003) Experimental design of total disk replacement: experience with a prospective randomized study of the SB Charite. Spine 28:S153–S162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, et al (2003) SB Charite disc replacement. Report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US Centre. J Spinal Disord Tech 4:424–433

    Google Scholar 

  31. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, et al (2005) A prospective, randomised, multi-centre food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of total lumbar disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion. Part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1576–1583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mirza SK (2005) Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to food and drug administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine 30:1561–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Möller H, Hedlund R (2000) Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 25:1711–1715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, et al (1999) Clinical guidelines; developing guidelines. BMJ 318:593–596

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shim CS, Lee S, Maeng DH, et al (2005) Vertical split fracture of the vertebral body following total disc replacement using ProDisc: a report of two cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(5):465–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Steiber JR, Donald GD (2006) Early failure of lumbar disc replacement: case report and review of the literature. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(1):55–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al (2003) Lumbar disc replacement: Preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of one year. J Spinal Disord Tech 4:362–368

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87A:490–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al (2006) Lumbar total disc replacement: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:50–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement; a report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LMLG, Laaper M, et al (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: two-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Zigler JE (2003) Clinical results with ProDisc: european experience and US Investigation Device Exemption Study. Spine 28:S163–S166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zigler JE (2004) Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the Pro-Disc II. Spine J 4:260S–267S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN, et al (2003) Lumbar spine arthroplasty. Early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 4:352–361

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, University Hospital, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Brian J. C. Freeman & James Davenport

Authors
  1. Brian J. C. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Davenport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian J. C. Freeman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freeman, B.J.C., Davenport, J. Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15 (Suppl 3), 439–447 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0186-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0186-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation