Skip to main content

Analysis of post-operative pain patterns following total lumbar disc replacement: results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations

European Spine Journal volume 17, pages 44–56 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Although a variety of biomechanical laboratory investigations and radiological studies have highlighted the potential problems associated with total lumbar disc replacement (TDR), no previous study has performed a systematic clinical failure analysis. The aim of this study was to identify the post-operative pain sources, establish the incidence of post-operative pain patterns and investigate the effect on post-operative outcome with the help of fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations in patients from an ongoing prospective study with ProDisc II. Patients who reported unsatisfactory results at any of the FU-examinations received fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations as part of a semi-invasive diagnostic and conservative treatment program. Pain sources were identified in patients with reproducible (≥2×) significant (50–75%) or highly significant (75–100%) pain relief. Results were correlated with outcome parameters visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the subjective patient satisfaction rate. From a total of 175 operated patients with a mean follow-up (FU) of 29.3 months (range 12.2–74.9 months), n = 342 infiltrations were performed in n = 58 patients (33.1%) overall. Facet joint pain, predominantly at the index level (86.4%), was identified in n = 22 patients (12.6%). The sacroiliac joint was a similarly frequent cause of post-operative pain (n = 21, 12.0%). Pain from both structures influenced all outcome parameters negatively (P < 0.05). Patients with an early onset of pain (≤6 months) were 2–5× higher at risk of developing persisting complaints and unsatisfactory outcome at later FU-stages in comparison to the entire study cohort (P < 0.05). The level of TDR significantly influenced post-operative outcome. Best results were achieved for the TDRs above the lumbosacral junction at L4/5 (incidence of posterior joint pain 14.8%). Inferior outcome and a significantly higher incidence of posterior joint pain were observed for TDR at L5/S1 (21.6%) and bisegmental TDR at L4/5/S1 (33.3%), respectively. Lumbar facet and/or ISJ-pain are a frequent and currently underestimated source of post-operative pain and the most common reasons for unsatisfactory results following TDR. Further failure-analysis studies are required and adequate salvage treatment options need to be established with respect to the underlying pathology of post-operative pain. The question as to whether or not TDR will reduce the incidence of posterior joint pain, which has been previously attributed to lumbar fusion procedures, remains unanswered. Additional studies will have to investigate whether TDR compromises the index-segment in an attempt to avoid adjacent segment degeneration.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S, Minamide A, Su Kim K, Tomita K, Hutton WC (2003) Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 28:1560–1566

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertagnoli R, Marnay T, Mayer HM (2003) The Prodisc book. Spine solutions GmbH, Tuttlingen

  3. Block AR, Vanharanta H, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD (1996) Discographic pain report. Influence of psychological factors. Spine 21:334–338

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cakir B, Richter M, Kafer W, Puhl W, Schmidt R (2005) The impact of total lumbar disc replacement on segmental and total lumbar lordosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20:357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cakir B, Schmidt R, Huch K, Puhl W, Richter M (2004) [Sagittal alignment and segmental range of motion after total disc replacement of the lumbar spine]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 142:159–165

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carragee EJ, Chen Y, Tanner CM, Hayward C, Rossi M, Hagle C (2000) Can discography cause long-term back symptoms in previously asymptomatic subjects? Spine 25:1803–1808

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Carragee EJ, Tanner CM, Yang B, Brito JL, Truong T (1999) False-positive findings on lumbar discography. Reliability of subjective concordance assessment during provocative disc injection. Spine 24:2542–2547

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Johnson JR (2003) Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:2089–2092

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chung SS, Lee CS, Kang CS, Kim SH (2006) The effect of lumbar total disc replacement on the spinopelvic alignment and range of motion of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:307–311

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cunningham BW (2004) Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 4:219S–230S

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE, Hu N, McAfee PC (2003) Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28:S110–S117

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. David T (1993) Lumbar disc prosthesis: surgical technique, indications and clinical results in 22 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Spine J 1:254–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LE, Bae H (2003) ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine 28:S167–175

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Denoziere G, Ku DN (2006) Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 39:766–775

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, Gilbertson LG, Wilder DG (2001) Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 26:E122–E129

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dreyfuss PH, Dreyer SJ (2003) Lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint injections. Spine J 3:50S–59S

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dreyfuss PH, Dreyer SJ, Herring SA (1995) Lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint injections. Spine 20:2040–2047

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:338–345

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel T, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D, Panjabi MM, Serhan H (2005) Effects of charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine 30:2755–2764

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML (1997) Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 339:76–81

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grauer JN, Biyani A, Faizan A, Kiapour A, Sairyo K, Ivanov A, Ebraheim NA, Patel T, Goel VK (2006) Biomechanics of two-level Charite artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination. Spine J 6:659–666

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hitchon PW, Eichholz K, Barry C, Rubenbauer P, Ingalhalikar A, Nakamura S, Follett K, Lim TH, Torner J (2005) Biomechanical studies of an artificial disc implant in the human cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2:339–343

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hochschuler SH, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL (2002) Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S106–110

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Wright TM (2003) The implications of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:412–417

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Tropiano P, Marnay T (2003) Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the prodisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:435–440

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Katz V, Schofferman J, Reynolds J (2003) The sacroiliac joint: a potential cause of pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:96–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Laslett M, McDonald B, Aprill CN, Tropp H, Oberg B (2006) Clinical predictors of screening lumbar zygapophyseal joint blocks: development of clinical prediction rules. Spine J 6:370–379

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lazennec JY, Ramare S, Arafati N, Laudet CG, Gorin M, Roger B, Hansen S, Saillant G, Maurs L, Trabelsi R (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9:47–55

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Le Huec J, Basso Y, Mathews H, Mehbod A, Aunoble S, Friesem T, Zdeblick T (2005) The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study. Eur Spine J 14:480–486

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S, Friesem T, Bruno MB (2005) Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:219–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. LeHuec JC, Kiaer T, Friesem T, Mathews H, Liu M, Eisermann L (2003) Shock absorption in lumbar disc prosthesis: a preliminary mechanical study. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:346–351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Leivseth G, Braaten S, Frobin W, Brinckmann P (2006) Mobility of lumbar segments instrumented with a ProDisc II prosthesis: a two-year follow-up study. Spine 31:1726–1733

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Ali el HS, Skalli W, Lavaste F (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Templier A, Mendes F, Diop A, Sauty V, Laloux E (1997) Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 337:64–76

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lippitt AB (1984) The facet joint and its role in spine pain. Management with facet joint injections. Spine 9:746–750

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu J, Ebraheim NA, Haman SP, Shafiq Q, Karkare N, Biyani A, Goel VK, Woldenberg L (2006) Effect of the increase in the height of lumbar disc space on facet joint articulation area in sagittal plane. Spine 31:E198–E202

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maigne JY, Planchon CA (2005) Sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar fusion. A study with anesthetic blocks. Eur Spine J 14:654–658

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Manchikanti L, Boswell MV (2005) Sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S135

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Marks RC, Houston T, Thulbourne T (1992) Facet joint injection and facet nerve block: a randomised comparison in 86 patients with chronic low back pain. Pain 49:325–328

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Mayer HM, Wiechert K (2002) Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement. Neurosurgery 51:S159–S165

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A, Qose I (2002) Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S124–S130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V, Sidiqi F, Dabbah M, Sefter JC, Hu N, Beatson H (2006) Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 31:S152–S160

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, Shucosky EM, Cunningham BW (2003) SB Charite disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:424–433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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 31:2624–2629

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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 (2005) Response of Charite total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J 5:590–599

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Polly DW Jr (2003) Adapting innovative motion-preserving technology to spinal surgical practice: what should we expect to happen? Spine 28:S104–S109

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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 15:183–195

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2005) Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 30:738–743

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R, Hu SS, Lotz JC (2006) Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 6:258–266

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sariali el H, Lemaire JP, Pascal-Mousselard H, Carrier H, Skalli W (2006) In vivo study of the kinematics in axial rotation of the lumbar spine after total intervertebral disc replacement: long-term results: a 10–14 years follow up evaluation. Eur Spine J 15:1501–1510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, Kang HS, Choi WC, Jung B, Choi G, Ahn Y, Lee S, Lee HY (2007) CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 32:1012–1018

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 32:782–790

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 31:1923–1932

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Siepe CJ, Wiechert K, Khattab MF, Korge A, Mayer HM (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance. Eur Spine J 16:1001–1013

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ (2004) Assessing the potential impact of total disc arthroplasty on surgeon practice patterns in North America. Spine J 4:195S–201S

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC, Lemaire JP, Tropiano P, Lafage V, Skalli W (2007) Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 16:411–421

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Trouillier H, Kern P, Refior HJ, Muller-Gerbl M (2006) A prospective morphological study of facet joint integrity following intervertebral disc replacement with the CHARITE(trade mark) Artificial Disc. Eur Spine J 15:174–182

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Umehara S, Zindrick MR, Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Vrbos LA, Knight GW, Miyano S, Kirincic M, Kaneda K, Lorenz MA (2000) The biomechanical effect of postoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented and adjacent spinal segments. Spine 25:1617–1624

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 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 16:369–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. van Tulder MW, Koes B, Seitsalo S, Malmivaara A (2006) Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 1):S82–92

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zigler JE (2003) Clinical results with ProDisc: European experience and U.S. investigation device exemption study. Spine 28:S163–S166

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN, Sachs BL, Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD (2003) Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:352–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Spine Center, Ortho-Center Munich, Harlachinger Strasse 51, 81547, Munich, Germany

    Christoph J. Siepe, Andreas Korge, Frank Grochulla, Christoph Mehren & H. Michael Mayer

Authors
  1. Christoph J. Siepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Korge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Grochulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Mehren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Michael Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christoph J. Siepe or H. Michael Mayer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siepe, C.J., Korge, A., Grochulla, F. et al. Analysis of post-operative pain patterns following total lumbar disc replacement: results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations. Eur Spine J 17, 44–56 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0519-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0519-3

Keywords

  • Total lumbar disc replacement
  • Spine arthroplasty
  • Prospective studies
  • Spine infiltrations
  • Failure analysis