Clinical Results of Total Lumbar Disc Replacement With ProDisc II: Three-Year Results for Different Indications

Study Design. Prospective study analyzing midterm clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement (ProDisc II) for different indications. Objectives. To assess functional outcome after total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) treated for varying indications. Summary of Background Data. Despite its frequent use and increasing popularity, indications and contraindications for TDR have not been defined precisely at this stage and remain a matter of debate, leading to disc replacement procedures in a variety of pathologies that have not yet been evaluated and compared separately. Methods. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated prospectively according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Questionnaire, SF-36, and numerous clinical parameters. Indications included degenerative disc disease (DDD), DDD with accompanying soft disc herniation (nucleus pulposus prolapse, NPP), osteochondrosis following previous discectomy, and DDD with presence of Modic changes. Postoperative improvement was recorded and analyzed for influence of preoperative diagnosis. Results. Overall, 92 patients from four groups with a mean follow-up of 34.2 months (minimum, 24 months) achieved significant and maintained improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0001). Patients with DDD + NPP achieved results significantly better than patients from the other groups (P < 0.05). Presence of Modic changes or previous discectomy did not influence outcome negatively. Improvement was achieved for both monosegmental and bisegmental disc replacements (P < 0.05), nevertheless with significantly inferior results for bisegmental interventions at 12- and 24-month follow-up and considerably higher complication rate. While older patients were still highly satisfied with postoperative outcome, better functional outcome was observed in younger patients. Conclusion. Present data suggest beneficial clinical results of TDR for treatment of DDD in a highly selected group of patients. Better functional outcome was obtained in younger patients under 40 years of age and patients with degenerative disc disease in association with disc herniation. Multilevel disc replacement had significantly higher complication rate and inferior outcome. Results are significantly dependent on preoperative diagnosis and patient selection, number of replaced segments, and age of the patient at the time of operation. Because of significantly varying outcomes, indications for disc replacement must be defined precisely.

[1]  R. Bertagnoli,et al.  Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[2]  CASEY K. LEE,et al.  Accelerated Degeneration of the Segment Adjacent to a Lumbar Fusion , 1988, Spine.

[3]  J. Goulet,et al.  Autogenous Iliac Crest Bone Graft: Complications and Functional Assessment , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  R. Biscup,et al.  Artificial disc replacement. Preliminary report with a 3-year minimum follow-up. , 1993, Spine.

[5]  H. Mayer,et al.  Microsurgical Anterior Approaches to the Lumbar Spine for Interbody Fusion and Total Disc Replacement , 2002, Neurosurgery.

[6]  E. Carragee,et al.  False-positive findings on lumbar discography. Reliability of subjective concordance assessment during provocative disc injection. , 1999, Spine.

[7]  Richard D. Guyer,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Prostheses , 2003, Spine.

[8]  F. Girardi,et al.  Lumbar Disc Replacement: Preliminary Results with ProDisc II After a Minimum Follow-Up Period of 1 Year , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[9]  Sang Soo Kim,et al.  Treatment of Juxtafusional Degeneration with Artificial Disc Replacement (ADR): Preliminary Results of an Ongoing Prospective Study , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[10]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[11]  D. Harrison,et al.  Increasing age does not affect good outcome after lumbar disc replacement , 2000, International Orthopaedics.

[12]  T. Markwalder,et al.  A novel surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation in patients with long-standing degenerative disc disease. , 2005, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Classification of Heterotopic Ossification (HO) in Artificial Disk Replacement , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[14]  Patrick Tropiano,et al.  Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  W. S. Zeegers,et al.  Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients , 1999, European Spine Journal.

[16]  W. Skalli,et al.  Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis: Results and Prospects for the Year 2000 , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  Philippe Gillet,et al.  The Fate of the Adjacent Motion Segments After Lumbar Fusion , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[18]  A. Korge,et al.  Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[19]  F. Geisler,et al.  7:301. Revisability of the Charité Artificial Disc Replacement: analysis of 347 patients enrolled in the US IDE study of the Charité Artificial Disc , 2005 .

[20]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  The biomechanical effect of postoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented and adjacent spinal segments. , 2000, Spine.

[21]  John R. Johnson,et al.  Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  D. Polly.  Adapting Innovative Motion-Preserving Technology to Spinal Surgical Practice: What Should We Expect to Happen? , 2003, Spine.

[23]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  A Multicenter Retrospective Study of the Clinical Results of the LINK®SB CharitéA Intervertebral Prosthesis. The Initial European Experience , 1994, Spine.

[24]  Rolando Garcia,et al.  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 , 2005, Spine.

[25]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Oblique Reformation in Cervical Spine Computed Tomography: A New Look at an Old Friend , 2003, Spine.

[26]  Salvador A Brau,et al.  Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. , 2002, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[27]  E. Carragee,et al.  Can Discography Cause Long-term Back Symptoms in Previously Asymptomatic Subjects? , 2000, Spine.

[28]  A. Korge,et al.  Non-fusion technology in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders: facts, questions, challenges , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[29]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  Discographic Pain Report: Influence of Psychological Factors , 1996, Spine.

[30]  F. Postacchini,et al.  Results of Disc Prosthesis After a Minimum Follow‐Up Period of 2 Years , 1996, Spine.

[31]  A. Burdorf,et al.  Health Status, Its Perceptions, and Effect on Return to Work and Recurrent Sick Leave , 2005, Spine.

[32]  Moe R. Lim,et al.  The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. , 2003, Spine.

[33]  Bryan W Cunningham,et al.  SB Charité disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[34]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  Lumbar Spine Arthroplasty: Early Results Using the ProDisc II: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion , 2003, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[35]  Hyun Bae,et al.  ProDisc Artificial Total Lumbar Disc Replacement: Introduction and Early Results From the United States Clinical Trial , 2003, Spine.