Failure of lumbar disc surgery: management by fusion or arthroplasty?
- 96 Downloads
To analyze and clarify conflicting aspects of fusion and total disc replacement (TDR) surgery in literature.
Using keywords, 23 literature reviews, 41 studies accepted by “importance criteria” from the Internet, and 16 articles “published in 2018” were chosen. Altogether 80 studies.
General assessment was mentioned as affirmative for TDR in 40 papers, five were negative, 24 without clear decision. Long term results TDR seven affirmative, four nondecisive. Comparison to fusion (general, ALIF, 3600, BAK cage) 18 found as better, nine equal, one nondecisive. Complications TDR 3–50%. Adjacent disc degeneration disease recognized in 14 papers, denied existence in four. Cost-benefit effective in three papers comparing to fusions, ALIF, 3600. Nonimbursement from the state mentioned as problem in three papers. Salvage surgery seven papers, rare but extremely problematic. Anterior approach 16 challenging surgery, one 10% minor, one 38.5% transient complications, one 1.8% retrograde ejaculations, one 6.6% vascular injuries, two access surgeon needed. Construct judgment two no importance, 22 wear and durability problems, two inadequate biomechanics and biomaterials, three construct and lateral approach. Impact of TDR upon spine surgery is decreasing, currently is less than 2%.
It is concluded that problems with anterior surgery, imbursement policy, and potential problems with salvage surgery are major reasons for loosing popularity of TDR surgery.
KeywordsFailed disc surgery Arthroplasty Fusions Literature review
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- 4.Fritzell P, Hägg O, Jonsson D, Nordwall A (2004) Swedish lumbar spine study group cost effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish lumbar spine study: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 29(4):421–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, Gross C, Tohtz SW, Khodadadyan-Klostermann C, Perka C, Kandziora F (2006) Charite total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-10223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Shultz BN, Wilson AT, Ondeck NT, Bovonratwet P, McLynn RP, Cui JJ, Grauer JN (2018) Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior interbody fusion in the lumbar spine have relatively a few differences in readmission and short-term adverse events. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(1):52–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.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):124–130Google Scholar
- 19.de Kleuver M, Oner FC, Jacobs WC (2003) Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 12:108–116Google Scholar
- 24.Scott-Young M, McEntee L, Schram B, Rathbone E, Hing W, Nielsen D (2018) Concurrent use of lumbar total disc arthroplasty and anterior lumbar interbody fusion: the lumbar hybrid procedure for the treatment of multilevel symptomatic degenerative disc disease: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(2):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.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. JBJS 93(8):705–715. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Hongfei N, Chen G, Wang X, Zeng J (2015) Comparison of total disc replacement with lumbar fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Coll Phys Surg Pak 25(1):60–67Google Scholar
- 32.Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, Nanieva R, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Kershaw T, Husted DS (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(19):2192–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Lazennec JY, Rakover JP, Rousseau MA (2018) Five-year follow-up of clinical and radiological outcomes of LP-ESP elastomeric lumbar total disc replacement in active patients. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.023
- 34.Hoffmann CH, Castein J, Kandziora F (2018) Staged surgical treatment for infection of total disc arthroplasty: three cases and a narrative review of the literature. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5648-3
- 37.Zigler J, Gornet MF, Ferko N, Cameron C, Schranck FW, Patel L (2018) Comparison of lumbar total disc replacement with surgical spinal fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of 5-year outcomes from randomized controlled trials. Global Spine J 8(4):413–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568217737317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, Nanieva R, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Kershaw T, Husted DS (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 30:2230–2236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Faure A, Khalifé M, Thiebaut B, Roubineau F, Flouzat Lachaniette CH, Dubory A (2018) Influence of the initial sagittal lumbar alignment on clinical and radiological outcomes of single level lumbar total disc replacements at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(16):959–967. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RA, Benzel EC (2014) Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 14:78–83Google Scholar
- 43.Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2(6):670–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.German JW, Foley MD, Kevin T (2005) Disc arthroplasty in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30(16):60–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000174511.66830.e9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 59.Mayer HM, Wiechert K (2002) Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):159–165Google Scholar
- 63.Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel TC, Biyani A, Sairyo K, Vishnubhotla S, Matyas A, Cowgill I, Shaw M, Long R, Dick D, Panjabi MM, Serhan H (2005) Effects of charité artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine 30(24):2755–2764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Gan JCC, Ducheyne P, Vresilovic E, Shapiro I (1999) Compositions and methods for intervertebral disc reformation. US Patent 5,964,807Google Scholar
- 69.Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L, Jacobs GB (1999) Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 91(1 Suppl):60–64Google Scholar
- 70.RL Assell, CD Ray (2000) Google Patents. US Patent 6,022,376, 8 Feb 2000Google Scholar
- 71.Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, Nygaard OP, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, Rø M, Sandvik L, Grundnes O (2011) Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. Norwegian Spine Study Group. BMJ 19(342):27–86. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2786 Google Scholar
- 72.Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO, 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 1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.Geisler FH (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 multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charité intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg Spine 1(2):143–154. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2004.1.2.0143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 74.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 30(14):1576–1583 discussion E388–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 75.Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT 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 : part I : evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1565–1575 discussion E387-E391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 77.Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgström F, Tullberg T, Tropp H (2011) Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 20(7):1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1607-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 78.Hägg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L, Nordwall A (2003) Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. A report from the Swedish lumbar spine study. Eur Spine J 12:22–33Google Scholar
- 85.Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Fenk-Mayer A, Eerulkar J, Emerson JW (2006) Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up. J Neurosurg Spine 4(2):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 90.Burton CV, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Yong-Hing K, Heithoff KB (1981) Causes of failure of surgery on the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 157:191–199Google Scholar