Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 2: distraction and posterior translation lead to clinical failure after a mean follow-up of 5 years

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 September 2014

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the second part of the study was to investigate the influence of parameters that lead to increased facet joint contact or capsule tensile forces (disc height, lordosis, and sagittal misalignment) on the clinical outcome after total disc replacement (TDR) at the lumbosacral junction.

Methods

A total of 40 patients of a prospective cohort study who received TDR because of degenerative disc disease or osteochondrosis L5/S1 were invited to an additional follow-up for clinical (ODI and VAS for overall, back, and leg pain) and radiographic analysis (a change in disc height, lordosis, or sagittal vertebral misalignment compared with the preoperative state). Based on the final ODI, patients were retrospectively distributed into groups N (normal: <25 %) or F (failure ≥25 %) for radiographic parameter comparison. A correlation analysis was performed between the clinical and radiological results.

Results

A total of 34 patients were available at a mean follow-up of 59.5 months. Both groups (N = 24; F = 10 patients) presented a significant improvement in overall pain, back pain, and ODI over time. At the final follow-up, higher clinical scores correlated with a larger disc height, increased lordosis, and posterior translation of the superior vertebra, which was also reflected by significant differences in these parameters in the group comparison.

Conclusions

Parameters associated with increased facet joint capsule tensile forces lead to an inferior clinical outcome at mid-term follow-up. When performing TDR, we therefore suggest avoiding iatrogenic posterior translation and overdistraction (and consecutive lordosis).

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, Garcia R Jr, Regan JJ, Ohnmeiss DD (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 part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1565–1575 (discussion E1387–1591)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Delamarter R, Zigler JE, Balderston RA, Cammisa FP, Goldstein JA, Spivak JM (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: results at twenty-four months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(8):705–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):338–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH (2011) Lumbar disc arthroplasty with MAVERICK disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(25):E1600–E1611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH, Holt RT, Jenis LG, Majd ME, Regan JJ, Tromanhauser SG, Wong DC, Blumenthal SL (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food And Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9(5):374–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ha KY, Lee JS, Kim KW (2008) Degeneration of sacroiliac joint after instrumented lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: a prospective cohort study over five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(11):1192–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10(4):309–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K, Blumenthal S, Guyer RD, Dmietriev A, Maxwell JH, Regan JJ, Isaza J (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1576–1583 (discussion E1388–1590)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1938–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO 3rd, Haider TT, Cammisa F, Zuchermann J, Balderston R, Kitchel S, Foley K, Watkins R, Bradford D, Yue J, Yuan H, Herkowitz H, Geiger D, Bendo J, Peppers T, Sachs B, Girardi F, Kropf M, Goldstein J (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 (Phila Pa 1976) 32(11):1155–1162 (discussion 1163)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(6):661–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, el Sariali H, Skalli W, Lavaste F (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(4):353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Marnay T (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(3):490–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chin KR (2007) Epidemiology of indications and contraindications to total disc replacement in an academic practice. Spine J 7(4):392–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 29(22):2538–2541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McAfee PC (2004) The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):177S–181S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wong DA, Annesser B, Birney T, Lamond R, Kumar A, Johnson S, Jatana S, Ghiselli G (2007) Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis. Spine J 7(1):5–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S, Friesem T, Bruno MB (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(3):219–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Templier A, Mendes F, Diop A, Sauty V, Laloux E (1997) Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 337:64–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park CK, Ryu KS, Jee WH (2008) Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(16):1755–1761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, Kang HS, Choi WC, Jung B, Choi G, Ahn Y, Lee S, Lee HY (2007) CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(9):1012–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Siepe CJ, Korge A, Grochulla F, Mehren C, Mayer HM (2008) Analysis of post-operative pain patterns following total lumbar disc replacement: results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations. Eur Spine J 17(1):44–56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Siepe CJ, Zelenkov P, Sauri-Barraza JC, Szeimies U, Grubinger T, Tepass A, Stabler A, Mayer MH (2010) The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, X-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(22):1991–2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(3):346–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Strube P, Hoff EK, Perka CF, Gross C, Putzier M (2012) Influence of the type of the sagittal profile on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement after a mean follow-up of 39 months. J Spinal Disord Tech [Epub ahead of print]

  26. Siepe CJ, Hitzl W, Meschede P, Sharma AK, Khattab MF, Mayer MH (2009) Interdependence between disc space height, range of motion and clinical outcome in total lumbar disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(9):904–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rohlmann A, Lauterborn S, Dreischarf M, Schmidt H, Putzier M, Strube P, Zander T (2013) Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 1: misalignment of the vertebrae adjacent to a total disc replacement affects the facet joint and facet capsule forces in a probabilistic finite element analysis. Eur Spine J [Epub ahead of print]

  28. Pfirrmann CW, Resnick D (2001) Schmorl nodes of the thoracic and lumbar spine: radiographic-pathologic study of prevalence, characterization, and correlation with degenerative changes of 1,650 spinal levels in 100 cadavers. Radiology 219(2):368–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 166(1 Pt 1):193–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Yamato M, An HS, Yoshida H, Saotome K, Kurihashi A (1999) The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J 8(5):396–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Meyerding HW (1956) Spondylolisthesis; surgical fusion of lumbosacral portion of spinal column and interarticular facets; use of autogenous bone grafts for relief of disabling backache. J Int Coll Surg 26(5 Part 1):566–591

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gerbershagen HU, Lindena G, Korb J, Kramer S (2002) Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic pain. Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) 16(4):271–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12(1):12–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, Dvorak J, Grob D (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 15(1):55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kafchitsas K, Kokkinakis M, Habermann B, Rauschmann M (2010) Effect of lumbar disc replacement on the height of the disc space and the geometry of the facet joints: a cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(4):595–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu J, Ebraheim NA, Haman SP, Shafiq Q, Karkare N, Biyani A, Goel VK, Woldenberg L (2006) Effect of the increase in the height of lumbar disc space on facet joint articulation area in sagittal plane. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(7):E198–E202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rauschning W (1987) Normal and pathologic anatomy of the lumbar root canals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 12(10):1008–1019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee CS, Chung SS, Oh SK, You JW (2011) Significance of angular mismatch between vertebral endplate and prosthetic endplate in lumbar total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(3):183–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC, Lemaire JP, Tropiano P, Lafage V, Skalli W (2007) Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 16(3):411–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 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–S136

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Siepe CJ, Heider F, Haas E, Hitzl W, Szeimies U, Stabler A, Weiler C, Nerlich AG, Mayer MH (2012) Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation. Eur Spine J 21(11):2287–2299

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Marc Schürings for the help with the data collection and analysis.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Orthopädie, Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Patrick Strube, Eike K. Hoff & Michael Putzier

  2. Julius Wolff Institut, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Hendrik Schmidt, Marcel Dreischarf & Antonius Rohlmann

Authors
  1. Patrick Strube
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eike K. Hoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hendrik Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcel Dreischarf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonius Rohlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Putzier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Strube.

Additional information

P. Strube and E. K. Hoff contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strube, P., Hoff, E.K., Schmidt, H. et al. Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 2: distraction and posterior translation lead to clinical failure after a mean follow-up of 5 years. Eur Spine J 22, 2279–2287 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2967-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2967-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation