Total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: single centre 20 years experience
To report clinical and radiographic outcomes, rate of complications and influence on spinal alignment on long-term follow-up (FU) of patients who underwent lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDR), bringing some evidence to determine the profile of the most well-suited patients for TDR.
A retrospective review of patients underwent TDR for low back pain from degenerative disc disease (DDD) resistant to conservative treatment was performed. Demographic features, surgical data, clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications and spinopelvic parameters were evaluated.
Thirty patients (32 TDR) were included with a mean FU of 164 ± 36.5 months. The clinical outcomes measured by visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index showed a significant improvement between preoperative and 1-year FU (p < 0.01). No significant temporal variance has been identified between 1-year and long-term follow-up (p > 0.05). The surgical revision rate was 10%. The overall rate of complications was 20%. At final follow-up, the mobility of the prosthesis was preserved in 68.75% of the cases, and 73.3% of the patients were globally well aligned.
The optimal surgical indication is crucial to achieve excellent clinical and radiological outcomes. According to the literature and to our experience, we underline the importance of a coronal deformity < 15° Cobb angle and a Roussouly type 1 or 2 as the profile of the most well-suited patient for TDR. Our long-term results confirm the existing evidence about efficacy and safety of TDR as a reliable option, in optimal surgery indication, to treat DDD.
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
KeywordsDegenerative disc disease Total disc replacement Long-term results Sagittal alignment Total disc arthroplasty
There is no funding source for this article.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 6.Lu SB, Hai Y, Kong C, Wang QY, Su Q, Zang L, Kang N, Meng XL, Wang Y (2015) An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 24(9):2056–2064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3939-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Andrieu K, Allain J, Longisa P-M, Steibc J-P, Beauraind J, Delécrina J (2017) Comparison between total disc replacement and hybrid construct at two lumbar levels with minimum follow-up of two years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.06.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Guyer RD, Pettine K, Roh JS, Dimmig TA, Coric D, McAfee PC, Ohnmeiss DD (2014) Comparison of 2 lumbar total disc replacements, results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter food and drug administration trial with 24-month follow-up. Spine 39(12):925–931. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Formica M, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Zanirato A, Felli L, Formica C (2015) Is it possible to preserve lumbar lordosis after hybrid stabilization? Preliminary results of a novel rigid-dynamic stabilization system in degenerative lumbar pathologies. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 7):849–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4264-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RAM, Benzel EC (2014) Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 14:78–83Google Scholar
- 24.Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2003) Geometrical and mechanical analysis of lumbar lordosis in an asymptomatic population: proposed classification. Rev Chir orthope’diquere’paratrice l’appareil Mot 89:632–639Google Scholar