Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study design includes a prospective, randomised controlled study comparing total disc replacement (TDR) with posterior fusion. The main objective of this study is to compare TDR with lumbar spinal fusion, in terms of clinical outcome, in patients referred to a spine clinic for surgical evaluation. Fusion is effective for treating chronic low back pain (LBP), but has drawbacks, such as stiffness and possibly adjacent level degradation. Motion-preserving options have emerged, of which TDR is frequently used because of these drawbacks. How the results of TDR compare to fusion, however, is uncertain. One hundred and fifty-two patients with a mean age of 40 years (21–55) were included: 90 were women, and 80 underwent TDR. The patients had not responded to a conservative treatment programme and suffered from predominantly LBP, with varying degrees of leg pain. Diagnosis was based on clinical examination, radiographs, MRI, and in unclear cases, diagnostic injections. Outcome measures were global assessment (GA), VAS for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, SF36 and EQ5D at 1 and 2 years. Follow-up rate was 100%, at both 1 and 2 years. All outcome variables improved in both groups between preoperative and follow-up assessment. The primary outcome measure, GA, revealed that 30% in the TDR group and 15% in the fusion group were totally pain-free at 2 years (P = 0.031). TDR patients had reached maximum recovery in virtually all variables at 1 year, with significant differences compared to the fusion group. The fusion patients continued to improve and at 2 years had results similar to TDR patients apart from numbers of pain-free. Complications and reoperations were similar in both groups, but pedicle screw removal as additive surgery, was frequent in the fusion group. One year after surgery, TDR was superior to spinal fusion in clinical outcome, but this difference had diminished by 2 years, apart from (VAS for back pain and) numbers of pain-free. The long-term benefits have yet to be examined.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersen T, Videbaek TS, Hansen ES et al (2008) The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11–13 year follow-up. Eur Spine J 17:272–280. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0494-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S (2002) Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 11:130–136. doi:10.1007/s005860100316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertagnoli R, Yue J, Shah R et al (2005) The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis. Spine 30:2192–2199. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000181061.43194.18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blumenthal S, McAfee P, Guyer R et al (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: I. Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bono CM, Garfin SR (2004) History and evolution of disc replacement. Spine 4:145S–150S. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dmitriev AE, Gill NW, Kuklo TR et al (2008) Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine J 8(6):918–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Freeman BJ, Davenport J (2006) Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 3):439–447. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0186-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus non-surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 26:2521–2534. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Nordwall A et al (2003) Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J 12:178–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Geisler F, Blumenthal S, Guyer R et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 1:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1497–1503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibson JA, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane review. Spine 30:2312–2320. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000182315.88558.9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Mathews H et al (2005) The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study. Eur Spine J 14:480–486. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0843-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36:315–322. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lehr R (1992) Sixteen S-squared over D-squared: a relation for crude sample size estimates. Stat Med 11:1099–1102. doi:10.1002/sim.4780110811

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mannion A, Elferim A (2006) Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J 15:S93–S108. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1045-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Molinari RW, Gerlinger T (2001) Functional outcomes of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in active-duty US servicemen: a comparison with nonoperative management. Spine 1:215–224. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00015-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Möller H, Hedlund R (2000) Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine 25:1711–1715. doi:10.1097/00007632-200007010-00016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moumene M, Geisler F (2007) Comparison of biomechanical function at ideal and varied surgical placement for two lumbar artificial disc implant designs, mobile-core versus fixed-core. Spine 32:1840–1851. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811ec29c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Putzier M, Funk J, Schneider S et al (2006) Charité total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1022-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shim C, Lee S, Shin H et al (2007) Charite versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 32:1012–1018. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000260795.57798.a0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Siepe C, Mayer M, Wiechert K et al (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II. Three-year results for different indications. Spine 31:1923–1932. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000228780.06569.e8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Siepe C, Mayer M, Heinz-Leisenheimer M et al (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 32:782–790. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000259071.64027.04

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Strömqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O et al (2005) One-year report from the Swedish National Spine Register. Acta Orthop Scand 76(5):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zeegers W, Bohnen L, Laaper M et al (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: two-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217. doi:10.1007/s005860050160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak J 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 32:1155–1162. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318054e377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Spine Center, Löwenströmska Hospital, 19489, Upplands Väsby, Sweden

    Svante Berg, Tycho Tullberg, Björn Branth & Claes Olerud

  2. University Hospital, 581 85, Linköping, Sweden

    Hans Tropp

Authors
  1. Svante Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tycho Tullberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Björn Branth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claes Olerud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans Tropp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svante Berg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berg, S., Tullberg, T., Branth, B. et al. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18, 1512–1519 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1047-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1047-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation