Advertisement

Total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: single centre 20 years experience

  • Carlo Formica
  • Andrea Zanirato
  • Stefano Divano
  • Marco Basso
  • Luca Cavagnaro
  • Mattia Alessio Mazzola
  • Valerio Gaetano Vellone
  • Maddalena Mastrogiacomo
  • Pedro Berjano
  • Lamberto Felli
  • Matteo FormicaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Degenerative disc disease Total disc replacement Long-term results Sagittal alignment Total disc arthroplasty 

Notes

Funding

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.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6100_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (187 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PPTX 186 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R (2010) The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:769–781.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basso M, Cavagnaro L, Zanirato A, Divano S, Formica C, Formica M, Felli L (2017) What is the clinical evidence on regenerative medicine in intervertebral disc degeneration? Musculoskelet Surg 101(2):93–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0462-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Formica M, Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Divano S, Felli L, Formica C (2017) Extreme lateral interbody fusion in spinal revision surgery: clinical results and complications. Eur Spine J 26(Suppl 4):464–470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5115-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plais N, Thevenot X, Cogniet A, Rigal J, Le Huec JC (2018) Maverick total disc arthroplasty performs well at 10 years follow-up: a prospective study with HRQL and balance analysis. Eur Spine J 27(3):720–727.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5065-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K, Hitzl W, Ishak B, Mayer MH (2014) Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up. Spine J 14(8):1417–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Formica M, Divano S, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Zanirato A, Formica C, Felli L (2017) Lumbar total disc arthroplasty: outdated surgery or here to stay procedure? A systematic review of current literature. J Orthop Traumatol 18(3):197–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-017-0462-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stubig T, Ahmed M, Ghasemi A, Nasto LA, Grevitt M (2018) Total disc replacement versus anterior–posterior interbody fusion in the lumbar spine and lumbosacral junction: a cost analysis. Glob Spine J 8(2):129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217713009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1873–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 66(1 Pt 1):193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salzmann SN, Plais N, Shue J, Girardi FP (2017) Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10(2):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aunoble S, Meyrat R, Al Sawad Y et al (2010) Hybrid construct for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 19:290–296.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1182-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur Spine J 25(11):3630–3637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Park C-K, Ryu K-S, Lee K-Y, Lee H-J (2012) Clinical outcome of lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-L in degenerative disc disease: minimum 5-year follow-up results at a single institute. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:672–677.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0B013e31822ecd85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park S-J, Lee C-S, Chung S-S, Lee K-H, Kim W-S, Lee J-Y (2016) Long-term outcomes following lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-II. Spine 41(21):971–977.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyer RD, Pettine K, Roh JS, Dimmig TA, Coric D, McAfee PC, Ohnmeiss DD (2016) Five-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial comparing two lumbar total disc replacements. Spine 41(1):3–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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
  20. 20.
    Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M et al (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(15):1701–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, Girardi FP, Lim MR, Cammisa FP Jr (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6(2006):242–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RAM, Benzel EC (2014) Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 14:78–83Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Le Huec JC, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0843-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Pellet N, Aunoble S, Meyrat R, Rigal J, Le Huec JC (2011) Sagittal balance parameters influence indications for lumbar disc arthroplasty or ALIF. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):S647–S662.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1933-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Formica
    • 1
  • Andrea Zanirato
    • 2
  • Stefano Divano
    • 2
  • Marco Basso
    • 2
  • Luca Cavagnaro
    • 2
  • Mattia Alessio Mazzola
    • 2
  • Valerio Gaetano Vellone
    • 3
  • Maddalena Mastrogiacomo
    • 4
    • 5
  • Pedro Berjano
    • 1
  • Lamberto Felli
    • 2
  • Matteo Formica
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly
  2. 2.Clinica OrtopedicaOspedale Policlinico San MartinoGenoaItaly
  3. 3.Anatomic Pathology, Department of Integrated Surgical and Diagnostic SciencesUniversity of Genoa - Ospedale Policlinico San MartinoGenoaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  5. 5.Biotherapy UnitOspedale Policlinico San MartinoGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations