Advertisement

Clinical Factors that May Affect Outcome in Lumbar Total Disc Replacement. What Is the Evidence?

  • Michael R. Zindrick
  • Mark Lorenz
  • Leonard I. Voronov
  • Michael N. Tzermiadianos
  • Alexander Hadjipavlou
Chapter

Abstract

The role of artificial disc replacement in the treatment of disorders of the lumbar spine remains unclear. The strength of the available evidence concerning a variety of factors that might affect outcomes needs to be assessed when evaluating the scientific merit of the new technology. Only lower level studies with conflicting results assess the effect on outcomes of single vs. multilevel surgery, L4–L5 vs. L5–S1 implantations, patient’s age and history of previous surgery. The extent of pre-operative facet degeneration that can be accepted remains unclear, as level IV studies report degradation of facet degeneration after implantation. Higher level studies support the importance of surgical precision upon clinical outcome and lower level studies give mixed results on the same issue. A level III prognostic study suggests that higher ROM of the implanted segment may be associated with better outcomes, while two level IV therapeutic studies provide conflicting results. Two level IV studies suggest that preservation of motion may have a prophylactic effect on adjacent discs. In conclusion, existing evidence does not provide definite conclusions in the majority of the clinical questions regarding indications and factors that may affect outcomes. Highest quality data are short term while longer term data are of lower quality and in many instances conflicting. More high-level studies with long-term follow-up are necessary to shed light into important clinical issues.

Keywords

Heterotopic Ossification Total Disc Replacement Disc Replacement Affect Outcome Scientific Merit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Straus S, Richardson W, Glasziou P, Haynes B (2005) Evidence based medicine, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson W et al (2000) Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dawes M, Summerskill W, Glasziou P et al (2005) Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med Educ 5:1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI et al (2008) An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 33(11):1262–1269Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al (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 32:1155–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD (2003) Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1–3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Eng M et al (2007) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(1):82Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trouillier H, Kern P, Refior HJ, Muller-Gerbl M (2006) A prospective morphological study of facet joint integrity ­following intervertebral disc replacement with the CHARITÉ artificial disc. Eur Spine J 15:174–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total 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 30:1576–1583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al (2007) Charité versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 32:1012–1018CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITÉ artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32(6):661–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, Gross C et al (2006) Charité total disc replacement-clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Regan JJ (2005) Clinical results of Charité lumbar total disc replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 36:323–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Ali el-HS et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the charitetrade mark artificial disc: A 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 16:369–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sott AH, Harrison DJ (2000) Increasing age does not affect good outcome after lumbar disc replacement. Int Orthop 24:50–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F et al (1997) Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 337:64–76Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patel VV, Andrews C, Pradhan BB et al (2006) Computed tomography assessment of the accuracy of in vivo placement of artificial discs in the lumbar spine including radiographic and clinical consequences. Spine 31:948–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T et al (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6:242–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr et al (2005) Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine 30:1407–1411Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 32:782–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 31:1923–1932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chung SS, Lee CS, Kang CS (2006) Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: a prospective study with a 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:411–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Nanieva R et al (2006) Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: a prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 4:85–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV et al (2005) The treatment of disabling single-level lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the Prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 30:2230–2236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV et al (2005) The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 30:2192–2199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:490–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Marnay T (2003) Lumbar disc replacement: preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:362–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(suppl 2):S131–S136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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–S130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S et al (2005) Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:219–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huang RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr (2004) The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine 29:2538–2541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mirza SK (2005) Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine 30:1561–1564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Zindrick
  • Mark Lorenz
  • Leonard I. Voronov
  • Michael N. Tzermiadianos
    • 1
  • Alexander Hadjipavlou
  1. 1.HeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations