Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revision surgery of spinal dynamic implants: a literature review and algorithm proposal

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

Abstract

Introduction

Dynamic stabilization of the spine has been performed since the 1990s with the double purpose of restoring spinal segmental stability and allowing residual movement at the operated level. When we take into account the different motion-preserving devices and the spinal areas where they are applied, we can identify three categories of spinal implants: anterior cervical, anterior lumbar, and posterior lumbar. However, as in all prosthetic procedures performed in orthopedic surgery, the life span of a joint replacement device is a central topic of discussion, and this is true also for spinal dynamic devices, being revision surgery a complex procedure in specific cases.

Materials and methods

We performed a literature review on the different dynamic spinal implants and the most common causes of failure, providing clinical cases as illustrative options for revision surgery.

Results

The review of the literature showed a 11.3% to 22.6% revision rate in posterior lumbar dynamic systems, with a peak of 40.6% in case of adjacent segment disease. In lumbar TDRs, infection and severe dislocations are the most frequent causes of anterior revisions, while posterior pedicle screw fixation could be a suitable option in minimal subsidence or TDR displacement. An algorithm for the planning of revision surgery is proposed.

Conclusions

Surgical revision of spinal dynamic implants could be a demanding surgery especially in anterior approaches. Anterior cervical revision remains globally safe, but careful preoperative evaluation of vessels and ureter are suggested to avoid intraoperative complications in the lumbar spine. In posterior revision, a proper sagittal alignment of the spine should be restored.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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. Graf H (1992) Lumbar instability: surgical treatment without fusion. Rachis 4(2):123–137

    Google Scholar 

  2. Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS, Lee KH, Kim WS, Lee JY (2016) Long-term outcomes following lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-II: average 10-year follow-up at a single institute. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(11):971–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guérin P, Obeid I, Gille O, Bourghli A, Luc S, Pointillart V, Vital JM (2012) Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(1):10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Xu S, Liang Y, Zhu Z, Qian Y, Liu H (2018) Adjacent segment degeneration or disease after cervical total disc replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 13(1):244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tapp SJ, Martin BI, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Weinstein MC, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Tosteson ANA (2018) Understanding the value of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: the case of interspinous spacer devices. Spine J 18(4):584–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G (2014) Degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients: dynamic stabilization without fusion versus posterior instrumented fusion. Spine J 14(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berjano P, Cecchinato R, Damilano M, Morselli C, Sansone V, Lamartina C (2013) Preoperative calculation of the necessary correction in sagittal imbalance surgery: validation of three predictive methods. Eur Spine J 22(SUPPL 6):S847–S852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Wu CL, Tu THT, Cheng H (2011) Pedicle screw loosening in dynamic stabilization: incidence, risk and outcome in 126 patients. Neurosurg Focus 31(4):E9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pham MH, Mehta VA, Patel NN, Jakoi AM, Hsieh PC, Liu JC, Wang JC, Acosta FL (2016) Complications associated with the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: a comprehensive review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 40(1):E2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rienmüller AC, Krieg SM, Schmidt FA, Meyer EL, Meyer B (2019) Reoperation rates and risk factors for revision 4 years after dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine. Spine J 19:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Laugesen LA, Paulsen RT, Carreon L, Ernst C, Andersen MØ (2017) Patient-reported outcomes and revision rates at a mean follow-up of 10 years after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(21):1657–1663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ozer AF, Oktenoglu T, Egemen E, Sasani M, Yilmaz A, Erbulut DU, Yaman O, Suzer T (2017) Lumbar single-level dynamic stabilization with semi-rigid and full dynamic systems: a retrospective clinical and radiological analysis of 71 patients. Clin Orthop Surg 9:310–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui XD, Li HT, Zhang W, Zhang LL, Luo ZP, Yang HL (2018) Mid- to long-term results of total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Singh K (2014) Comparison of revision surgeries for one- to two-level cervical TDR and ACDF from 2002 to 2011. Spine J 14(12):2841–2846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang B, Wu T, Liu H, Deng Y, Ding C (2017) Intraoperative conversion of artificial cervical disc replacement to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for iatrogenic fracture. A rare case report. Medicine 96:47(e8917)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kostuik JP (2004) Complications and surgical revision for failed disc arthroplasty. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):289S–291S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel AA, Brodke DS, Pimenta L, Bono CM, Hilibrand AS, Harrop JS, Riew KD, Youssef JA, Vaccaro AR (2008) Revision strategies in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(11):1276–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leary SP, Regan JJ, Lanman TH, Wagner WH (2007) Revision and explantation strategies involving the CHARITE lumbar artificial disc replacement. Spine 32:1001–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Spivak JM, Petrizzo AM (2010) Revision of a lumbar disc arthroplasty following late infection. Eur Spine J 19:677–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Onken J, Reinke A, Radke J, Finger T, Bayerl S, Vajkoczy P, Meyer B (2017) Revision surgery for cervical artificial disc: surgical technique and clinical results. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 152:39–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Punt I, Willems P, Kurtz S, van Rhijn L, van Ooij A (2012) Clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements. Eur Spine J 21:2558–2564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cunningham BW, Hu N, Beatson HJ, Serhan H, Sefter JC, McAfee PC (2009) Revision strategies for single- and two-level total disc arthroplasty procedures: a biomechanical perspective. Spine J 9(9):735–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerometta A, Rodriguez Olaverri JC, Bittan F (2012) Infection and revision strategies in total disc arthroplasty. Int Orthop (SICOT) 36:471–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eskander MS, Onyedika II, Eskander JP, Connolly PJ, Eck JC, Lapinsky A (2010) Revision strategy for posterior extrusion of the CHARITÉ polyethylene core. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(24):E1430–E1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M (2011) Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys 33(4):490–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Phan K, Nazareth A, Hussain AK, Dmytriw AA, Nambiar M, Nguyen D, Kerferd J, Phan S, Sutterlin C 3rd, Cho SK, Mobbs RJ (2018) Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique. Eur Spine J 27(8):1981–1991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Obeid I, Boissière L, Vital JM, Bourghli A (2015) Osteotomy of the spine for multifocal deformities. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 1):S83–S92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Obeid I, Berjano P, Lamartina C, Chopin D, Boissière L, Bourghli A (2019) Classification of coronal imbalance in adult scoliosis and spine deformity: a treatment-oriented guideline. Eur Spine J 28(1):94–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoshida G, Boissiere L, Larrieu D, Bourghli A, Vital JM, Gille O, Pointillart V, Challier V, Mariey R, Pellisé F, Vila-Casademunt A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Alanay A, Acaroglu E, Kleinstück F, Obeid I (2017) Advantages and disadvantages of adult spinal deformity surgery and its impact on health-related quality of life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(6):411–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cecchinato R, Redaelli A, Martini C, Morselli C, Villafane JH, Lamartina C, Berjano P (2017) Long fusions to S1 with or without pelvic fixation can induce relevant acute variations in pelvic incidence: a retrospective cohort study of adult spine deformity surgery. Eur Spine J 26(Suppl 4):436–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GSpine4, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy

    R. Cecchinato

  2. Orthopedic and Spinal Surgery Department, Kingdom Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    A. Bourghli

  3. Orthopedic Spinal Surgery Unit 1, Pellegrin Hospital, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux Cedex, France

    I. Obeid

Authors
  1. R. Cecchinato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Bourghli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Cecchinato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

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 material 1 (PPTX 1010 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cecchinato, R., Bourghli, A. & Obeid, I. Revision surgery of spinal dynamic implants: a literature review and algorithm proposal. Eur Spine J 29 (Suppl 1), 57–65 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06282-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06282-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation