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

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  Google 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) 26:1873–1878

    CAS  Article  Google 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):193

    Article  Google 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):153–159

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):3630–3637

    Article  Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):1701–1707

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RAM, Benzel EC (2014) Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 14:78–83

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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 89:632–639

    CAS  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding source for this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Formica.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PPTX 186 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Formica, C., Zanirato, A., Divano, S. et al. Total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: single centre 20 years experience. Eur Spine J 29, 1518–1526 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06100-3

Download citation

Keywords

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