Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Lumbar Total Disc Replacements for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review of Outcomes With a Minimum of 5 years Follow-Up

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the clinical outcomes, re-operation, and complication rates of lumbar TDR devices at mid-to long-term follow-up studies for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar to identify follow-up studies that evaluated clinical outcomes of lumbar TDR in patients with DDD. The included studies met the following criteria: prospective or retrospective studies published from 2012 to 2022; a minimum of 5 years post-operative follow-up; a study sample size >10 patients; patients >18 years of age; containing clinical outcomes with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), complication or reoperation rates.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included with data on 2284 patients. The mean follow-up time was 8.30 years, with a mean follow-up rate of 86.91%. The study population was 54.97% female, with a mean age of 42.34 years. The mean VAS and ODI pain score improvements were 50.71 ± 6.91 and 30.39 ± 5.32 respectively. The mean clinical success and patient satisfaction rates were 74.79% ± 7.55% and 86.34% ± 5.64%, respectively. The mean complication and reoperation rates were 18.53% ± 6.33% and 13.6% ± 3.83%, respectively. There was no significant difference when comparing mid-term and long-term follow-up studies for all clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant improvements in pain reduction at last follow-up in patients with TDRs. Mid-term follow-up data on clinical outcomes, complication and reoperation rates of lumbar TDRs were maintained longer term.

Diagnosis and Management of Hepatitis Delta Virus Infection

Hepatitis D virus (HDV) depends on hepatitis B virus (HBV) to enter and exit hepatocytes and to replicate. Despite this dependency, HDV can cause severe liver disease. HDV accelerates liver fibrosis, increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hastens hepatic decompensation compared to chronic HBV monoinfection. The Chronic Liver Disease Foundation (CLDF) formed an expert panel to publish updated guidelines on the testing, diagnosis, and management of hepatitis delta virus. The panel group performed network data review on the transmission, epidemiology, natural history, and disease sequelae of acute and chronic HDV infection. Based on current available evidence, we provide recommendations for screening, testing, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatitis D infection and review upcoming novel agents that may expand treatment options. The CLDF recommends universal HDV screening for all patients who are Hepatitis B surface antigen-positive. Initial screening should be with an assay to detect antibodies generated against HDV (anti-HDV). Patients who are positive for anti-HDV IgG antibodies should then undergo quantitative HDV RNA testing. We also provide an algorithm that describes CLDF recommendations on the screening, diagnosis, testing, and initial management of Hepatitis D infection.

An Artificial PVA-BC Composite That Mimics the Biomechanical Properties and Structure of a Natural Intervertebral Disc

Disc herniation is one of the most ubiquitous healthcare problems in modern cities—severe patients eventually require surgical intervention. However, the existing operations—spinal fusion and artificial disc replacement—alter the biomechanics of the spine, leaving much room for improvement. The appropriateness of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) for biomedical applications has been recognised due to its high water content, excellent biocompatibility, and versatile mechanical properties. In this study, a newly-designed PVA–bacterial cellulose (PVA-BC) composite was assembled to mimic both the biomechanics and annular structure of natural intervertebral discs (IVDs). PVA-BC composites of various concentrations were fabricated and tested under unconfined compression and compressive creep in order to acquire the values of the normalised compressive stiffness and whole normalised deformation. The normalised compressive stiffness increased considerably with an increasing PVA concentration, spanning from 1.82 (±0.18) to 3.50 (±0.14) MPa, and the whole normalised deformation decreased from 0.25 to 0.13. Formulations of 40% PVA provided the most accurate mimicry of natural human IVDs in normalised whole deformation, and demonstrated higher dimensional stability. The biocompatible results further confirmed that the materials had excellent biocompatibility. The novel bionic structure and formulations of the PVA-BC materials mimicked the biomechanics and structure of natural IVDs, and ensured dimensional stability under prolonged compression, reducing the risk of impingement on the surrounding tissue. The PVA-BC composite is a promising material for third-generation artificial IVDs with integrated construction.

A novel lumbar total joint replacement may be an improvement over fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions: a comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes at one year

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Effective alternatives to lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions have remained elusive. Anterior total disc replacement does not address facet pathology or central/recess stenosis, resulting in limited indications. A posterior-based motion-preserving option that allows for neural decompression, facetectomy, and reconstruction of the disc and facets may have a role.

PURPOSE

The purpose was to compare one-year patient-reported outcomes for a novel, all-posterior, lumbar total joint replacement (LTJR - replacing both the disc and facet joints) against transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar conditions warranting fusion (degenerative spondylolisthesis, recurrent disc herniation, severe foraminal stenosis requiring facet removal, and adjacent segment degeneration).

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data comparing outcomes for LTJR patients to TLIF patients at an academic teaching hospital.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Analysis was conducted on 156 adult TLIF patients who were propensity matched to the 52 LTJR patients for a total sample of 208.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were compared preoperatively, 3 months and 1 year after surgery.

METHODS

The implant is a motion-preserving lumbar reconstruction that replaces the function of both the disc and facets and is implanted using a bilateral transforaminal approach with complete facetectomies. Adult patients with degenerative lumbar pathology undergoing either LTJR or open TLIF were analyzed. These degenerative conditions included: grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis, recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease, disc degeneration with severe foraminal stenosis). Trauma, tumor, grade 2 or higher spondylolisthesis, spinal deformity, and infection cases were excluded. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure parity between the cohorts. Multivariable regression analyses were done to compare the 1-year results as measured by 3 different standards to assess procedure success.

RESULTS

At 3 months, both the LTJR and TLIF cohorts showed significant and similar improvements in ODI and NRS back and leg pain. At 1 year, the LTJR cohort showed continued improvement in ODI and NRS back pain, while the TLIF group showed a plateau for ODI, back and leg pain. In a series of three multivariable logistic regressions, LTJR was shown to provide 3.3 times greater odds of achieving the minimal clinical symptom state in disability and pain (ODI <20%, NRS back and leg pain <2) and 2.4 and 4.1 times greater odds of achieving substantial clinical benefit (18% reduction in ODI) and minimal clinically important difference (30% reduction in ODI) as compared to TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we present a comparative analysis for the first 52 patients undergoing a novel, posterior-based LTJR for the lumbar spine versus TLIF for degenerative pathology. The approach for the LTJR allows for wide neural decompression, facetectomy, and complete discectomy, with the implant working to replace the function of the disc and facets to preserve motion. At 1 year, the LTJR cohort showed significant improvement in ODI and NRS back and leg pain as compared to TLIF. These results suggest that wide neural decompression combined with motion preservation using this novel LTJR may represent a viable alternative to TLIF for treating certain degenerative conditions. A prospective controlled trial is under development to further evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of this procedure.

Advanced meta-analyses comparing the three surgical techniques total disc replacement, anterior stand-alone fusion and circumferential fusion regarding pain, function and complications up to 3 years to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease

PURPOSE

The purpose of our meta-analyses is to find the most appropriate surgical technique treating lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Spinal fusion is the conventional treatment for lumbar DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has been developed to avoid negative effects of fusions by preserving functionality. To our knowledge, there is no evaluation comparing meta-analytically the clinical results of three different surgical techniques with same inclusion and exclusion criteria for treating DDD.

METHODS

The surgical techniques TDR, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and circumferential fusion (CFF) are pairwise meta-analytically compared. Primary outcomes are pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and function measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes are the mean number of complications per case (MNOC) at surgery and follow-up and the overall MNOC.

RESULTS

In our systematic search, we found finally six prospective studies with the minimum follow-up of two years: four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies. In VAS and ODI, TDR is proved to be superior to ALIF and CCF (p < 0.05), whereat ALIF is more effective than CFF without statistical significance. CFF presents the best result in complications with the lowest overall MNOC (0.1), followed by TDR (1.2) and ALIF (1.5).

CONCLUSION

According to our meta-analyses, we regard TDR to be the most appropriate surgical technique treating DDD, followed by ALIF. Further studies with a longer follow-up are needed using the same methodical approach to strengthen the VAS and ODI results and to explain the discrepant result to complications.

[Smoking as a risk factor of advanced heterotopic ossification in patients after lumbar total disk arthroplasty]

Smoking is an obvious risk factor of adverse events in early and long-term postoperative period after spine surgery including lumbar total disk arthroplasty. Objective. To study the effect of smoking on clinical and radiological outcomes after lumbar total disk arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective observational cohort study was performed. We have analyzed medical records of patients who underwent single-level lumbar total disk arthroplasty for degenerative disease.

RESULTS

The study included 57 medical records of respondents. The examined medical records were divided into two groups - smokers (n=26) and non-smokers (n=31). There were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. Incidence of adverse events was similar too. Kaplan-Meier event-free survival was similar in both groups. There were no significant between-group differences in X-ray data. Development of heterotopic ossification after lumbar total disk arthroplasty was more active in smokers.

CONCLUSION

Smoking has no significant effect on clinical and radiological outcomes in patients after single-level after lumbar total disk arthroplasty. On the other hand, smoking significantly increases formation of heterotopic ossification after lumbar total disk arthroplasty.

Identification of Key Modules and Hub Genes of Annulus Fibrosus in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

Background: Intervertebral disc degeneration impairs the quality of patients lives. Even though there has been development of many therapeutic strategies, most of them remain unsatisfactory due to the limited understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the intervertebral disc degeneration. Questions/purposes: This study is meant to identify the key modules and hub genes related to the annulus fibrosus in intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) through: (1) constructing a weighted gene co-expression network; (2) identifying key modules and hub genes; (3) verifying the relationships of key modules and hub genes with IDD; and (4) confirming the expression pattern of hub genes in clinical samples. Methods: The Gene Expression Omnibus provided 24 sets of annulus fibrosus microarray data. Differentially expressed genes between the annulus fibrosus of degenerative and non-degenerative intervertebral disc samples have gone through the Gene Ontology (GO) and pathway analysis. The construction of a gene network and classification of genes into different modules were conducted through performing Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis. The identification of modules and hub genes that were most related to intervertebral disc degeneration was proceeded. In order to verify the relationships of the module and hub genes with intervertebral disc degeneration, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis was operated. Clinical samples were adopted to help verify the hub gene expression profile. Results: One thousand one hundred ninety differentially expressed genes were identified. Terms and pathways associated with intervertebral disc degeneration were presented by GO and pathway analysis. The construction of a Weighted Gene Coexpression Network was completed and clustering differentially expressed genes into four modules was also achieved. The module with the lowest P-value and the highest absolute correlation coefficient was selected and its relationship with intervertebral disc degeneration was confirmed by Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. The identification of hub genes and the confirmation of their expression profile were also realized. Conclusions: This study generated a comprehensive overview of the gene networks underlying annulus fibrosus in intervertebral disc degeneration. Clinical Relevance: Modules and hub genes identified in this study are highly associated with intervertebral disc degeneration, and may serve as potential therapeutic targets for intervertebral disc degeneration.

Lumbar Arthroplasty: Past, Present, and Future

Lumbar degenerative disc disease is a pathologic process that affects a large portion of our aging population. In the recent past, surgical treatment has involved fusion procedures. However, lumbar disc arthroplasty and replacement provides an alternative for carefully selected patients. It provides the major advantage of motion preservation and thus keeps adjacent segments from significantly progressive degeneration. The history of lumbar disc replacement has roots that start in the 1960s with the implantation of stainless-steel balls. Decades later, multiple implants with different material design and biomechanical properties were introduced to the market. New third-generation implants have made great strides in improved biomechanics and clinical outcomes. Although there is room for further advancement and studies are warranted to assess the long-term durability and sustainability of lumbar disc arthroplasty, it has certainly proven to be a very acceptable alternative within the surgical armamentarium that should be offered to patients who meet indications. In this review we present an overview of lumbar disc arthroplasty including its history, indications, biomechanics, challenges, and future directions.

Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Lumbar fusion is considered to the gold standard for treatment of spinal degenerative diseases but results in adjacent segment degeneration and acquired spinal instability. Total disc replacement is a relatively new alternative avoiding the occurrence of the above complications. The systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate whether total disc replacement exhibited better outcomes and safety.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database(CNKI), Wangfang database, and VIP database were searched for RCTs comparing total disc replacement with lumbar fusion. All statistical analyses were carried out using the RevMan5.3 and STATA12.0 software.

RESULTS

Of 1116 citations identified by our search strategy, 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Compared to lumbar fusion, total disc replacement significantly improved ODI, VAS, SF-36, patient satisfaction, overall success, reoperation rate, ODI successful, reduced operation time, shortened duration of hospitalization, decreased postsurgical complications. However, total disc replacement did not show a significant difference regarding blood loss, consumption of analgesics, neurologic success and device success with lumbar fusion. And charges were significantly lower for total disc replacement compared with lumbar fusion in the 1-level patient group, while charges were similar in the 2-level group.

CONCLUSION

Total disc replacement is recommended to alleviate the pain of degenerative lumbar diseases, improve the state of lumbar function and the quality of life of patients, provide a high level of security, have better health economics benefits for 1-level patients.

Intervertebral disc regeneration: From cell therapy to the development of novel bioinspired endogenous repair strategies

Low back pain (LBP), frequently associated with intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration, is a major public health concern. LBP is currently managed by pharmacological treatments and, if unsuccessful, by invasive surgical procedures, which do not counteract the degenerative process. Considering that IVD cell depletion is critical in the degenerative process, the supplementation of IVD with reparative cells, associated or not with biomaterials, has been contemplated. Recently, the discovery of reparative stem/progenitor cells in the IVD has led to increased interest in the potential of endogenous repair strategies. Recruitment of these cells by specific signals might constitute an alternative strategy to cell transplantation. Here, we review the status of cell-based therapies for treating IVD degeneration and emphasize the current concept of endogenous repair as well as future perspectives. This review also highlights the challenges of the mobilization/differentiation of reparative progenitor cells through the delivery of biologics factors to stimulate IVD regeneration.

Five-year follow-up of clinical and radiological outcomes of LP-ESP elastomeric lumbar total disc replacement in active patients

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease at the lumbar spine may involve fusion. Total disc replacement (TDR) is an alternative treatment to avoid fusion-related adverse events, specifically adjacent segment disease. New generation of elastomeric non-articulating devices has been developed to more effectively replicate the shock absorption and flexural stiffness of native disc.

PURPOSE

To report 5 years clinical and radiographic outcomes, range of motion (ROM), and position of the center of rotation after a viscoelastic lumbar TDR.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-one patients OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinical evaluation was based on visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, short form-36 (SF-36) including the physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS), and general health questionnaire-28 (GHQ28). The radiological outcomes were ROM and position of the center of rotation at the index and the adjacent levels and the adjacent disc height changes.

METHODS

Our study group included 61 consecutive patients with monosegmental disc replacement. We selected patients who could provide a global lumbar spine mobility analysis (intermediate functional activity according to the Baecke score). Hybrid constructs had been excluded. Only the cases with complete clinical and radiological follow-up at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months were included.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in VAS (3.3±2.5 vs. 6.6±1.7, p<.001), in ODI (20±17.9 vs. 51.2±14.6, p<.001), GHQ28 (52.6±15.5 vs. 64.2±15.6, p<.001), SF-36 PCS (58.8±4.8 vs. 32.4±3.4, p<.001), and SF-36 MCS (60.7±6 vs. 42.3±3.4, p<.001). The mean location centers of the index level and adjacent discs were comparable to those previously published in asymptomatic patients. According to the definition of Zigler and Delamarter, all of our cases remained grade 0 for adjacent level disc height (within 25% of normal).

CONCLUSIONS

This series reports significant improvement in midterm follow-up after TDR, which is consistent with previously published studies but with a lower rate of revision surgery and no adjacent level disease pathologies. The radiographic assessment of the patients demonstrated the quality of functional reconstruction of the lumbar spine after LP-ESP viscoelastic disc replacement.

Design and material evaluation for a novel lumbar disc replacement implanted via unilateral transforaminal approach

The degeneration of the intervertebral disc is one of the principal causes of low back pain. Total disc replacement is a surgical treatment that aims to replace the degenerated disc with a dynamic implant to restore spine biomechanics. This paper proposes the first design of an elastomeric lumbar disc replacement that is implanted as a pair of devices via unilateral transforaminal surgical approach. Furthermore, several biomaterials (Polyurethanes (PU) and Polycarbonate Urethanes (PCU)) are evaluated for the purpose of the implant to mimic the axial compliance of the spine. Bionate II 80A (a pure PCU), Elast Eon 82A E5-325 (a PU with polydimethylsiloxane and polyhexamethylene oxide), Chronosil (a PCU based silicone elastomer) 80A with 5% and 10% of silicone were obtained and injection moulded according to the shape of the implant core, which was defined after a stress distribution analysis with the finite element method. The dimensions for each specimen were: 14.6 × 5.6 × 6.1 mm (length, width and height). Quasistatic compression tests were performed at a displacement rate of 0.02 mm/s. The obtained stiffness for each material at 1 mm displacement was: Bionate II 80A, 448.48 N/mm; Elast Eon 82A E5-325, 216.55 N/mm; Chronosil 80A 5%, 127.73 N/mm; and Chronosil 80A 10%, 126.48 N/mm. Dimensional changes were quantified after two quasi-static compression tests. Plastic deformation was perceived in all cases with a total percentage of height loss of: 4.1 ± 0.5% for Elast Eon 82A E5-325; 3.2 ± 0.5% for Chronosil 80A 10%; 2.7 ± 0.3% for Chronosil 80A 5% and 1.1 ± 0.2% for Bionate II 80A. The mechanical behaviour of these biomaterials is discussed to assess their suitability for the novel disc replacement device proposed.

J, Li Z, Ou Y. The short-term efficacy and safety of artificial total disc replacement for selected patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) with the efficacy and safety of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD).

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for the period from the establishment of the databases to March 2018. The peer-reviewed articles that investigate the safety and efficacy of TDR and ALIF were retrieved under the given search terms. Quality assessment must be done independently by two authors according to each item of criterion. The statistical analyses were performed using RevMan (version 5.3) and Stata (version 14.0). The random-effect model was carried out to pool the data. The I² statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the robustness of the results of meta-analyses by omitting the articles one by one.

Results

Six studies (5 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 1 observational study) involving 1093 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the studies could be considered as low to moderate. Operative time (MD = 4.95; 95% CI -18.91–28.81; P = 0.68), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 4.95; 95% CI -18.91–28.81; P = 0.68), hospital stay (MD = -0.33; 95% CI, -0.67–0.01; P = 0.05), complications (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.91–1.02; P = 0.18) and re-operation rate (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.14–2.12; P = 0.38) were without significant clinical difference between groups. Patients in the TDR group had higher postoperative satisfaction (RR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.07–1.32; P = 0.001) and, better improvements in ODI (MD = -10.99; 95% CI -21.50- -0.48; P = 0.04), VAS (MD = -10.56; 95% CI -19.99- -1.13; P = 0.03) and postoperative lumbar mobility than did patients in the ALIF group.

Conclusions

The results showed that TDR has significant superiority in term of reduced clinical symptoms, improved physical function and preserved range of motion for the treatment of LDDD compared to ALIF. TDR may be an ideal alternative for the selected patients with LDDD in the short-term. However, the results of this study cannot suggest the use of TDR instead of ALIF in lumbar spine treatment only in the light of short term results. More studies that are well-designed, that are of high-quality and that have larger samples are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of TDR with at the long-term follow-up.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level 3

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

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of total disc replacement (TDR) compared with fusion in patients with functionally disabling chronic low back pain due to single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 5 years.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes at 5 years for TDR compared with fusion in patients with single-level lumbar DDD. Outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain scores, reoperations, and patient satisfaction. All analyses were conducted using a random-effects model; analyses were reported as relative risk (RR) ratios and mean differences (MDs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted for different outcome definitions, high loss to follow-up, and high heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 4 studies. TDR patients had a significantly greater likelihood of ODI success (RR 1.0912; 95% CI 1.0004, 1.1903) and patient satisfaction (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03, 1.24) and a significantly lower risk of reoperation (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.35, 0.77) than fusion patients. There was no association with improvement in back pain scores whether patients received TDR or fusion (MD -2.79; 95% CI -8.09, 2.51). Most results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Results for ODI success and patient satisfaction were sensitive to different outcome definitions but remained in favor of TDR.

CONCLUSIONS

TDR is an effective alternative to fusion for lumbar DDD. It offers several clinical advantages over the longer term that can benefit the patient and reduce health care burden, without additional safety consequences.

Comparison of therapies in lumbar degenerative disc disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of total disc replacement, lumbar fusion, and conservative care in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

MATERIALS & METHODS

A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative impact of lumbar DDD therapies on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain score, patient satisfaction, employment status, and reoperation. Odds ratios or mean differences and 95% credible intervals were reported.

RESULTS

Six studies were included (1417 participants). Overall, the activL total disc replacement device had the most favorable results for ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction. Results for employment status and reoperation were similar across therapies.

CONCLUSION

activL substantially improves ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with other therapies for single-level lumbar DDD.

Total Disc Arthroplasty Versus Anterior Interbody Fusion in the Lumbar Spine Have Relatively a Few Differences in Readmission and Short-term Adverse Events

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective matched cohort study of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of adverse events and readmission between lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

TDA and ALIF may be considered for similar degenerative indications. However, there have been a few large-cohort comparison studies of short-term clinical outcomes for these procedures.

METHODS

The 2011-2015 NSQIP databases were retrospectively queried to identify patients who underwent elective stand-alone ALIF and TDA. After propensity matching, the association of procedure type with adverse events and readmission was determined using McNemar's test. Operative time and postoperative length of stay (LOS) were compared using multivariate linear regression. Risk factors for adverse events were determined using multivariate Poisson regression.

RESULTS

In total, 1801 ALIF and 255 TDA patients were identified. After matching with propensity scores, there were no significant differences in the rates of any adverse event, serious adverse events, individual adverse events, or readmission other than blood transfusion, which occurred more frequently in the ALIF cohort (3.92% vs. 0.39%, P = 0.007). Operative time was not significantly different between the two cohorts, but postoperative LOS was significantly longer for ALIF cases (+0.28 days, P < 0.001). When evaluating 10 preoperative variables as potential risk factors for adverse events and readmission after TDA and ALIF, the majority of results were similar.

CONCLUSION

The only identified differences in perioperative outcomes between TDA and ALIF were a 3.53% higher incidence of blood transfusion and 0.28-day longer LOS for the ALIF group. These results suggest overall similar short-term general-health outcomes between the two groups, and that the choice between the two procedures, for the appropriately selected patient, should be based on longer-term functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Defining the Ideal Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Patient and Standard of Care

: Lumbar total disc replacement, now in use since 2004, was determined by the panel to be a standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease in the active patient subpopulation as outlined by the investigational device exemption study criteria. The large body of evidence supporting this statement, including surgeons' experiences, was presented and discussed. Consensus statements focusing on decision-making criteria reflected that efficacy, long-term safety, clinical outcomes with validated measures, and cost-effectiveness should form the basis of decision-making by payers. Diagnostic challenges with lumbar degenerative disc disease patients were discussed among the panel, and it was concluded that although variably used among surgeons, reliable tools exist to appropriately diagnose discogenic back pain.

Challenges and Solutions for Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Implantation

: Long-term data are now available to support the safety and efficacy of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR). Five-year randomized and controlled trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies support a similar or lower risk of complications with lumbar TDR compared with fusion. The panel concluded that published data on commercially available lumbar TDR devices demonstrate minimal concerns with late-onset complications, and that the risk of adjacent segment degeneration and reoperations can be reduced with lumbar TDR versus fusion. Survey results of surgeon practice experiences supported the evidence, revealing a low rate of complications with TDR. Panelists acknowledged the importance of adhering to selection criteria to help minimize patient complications.

Patient-reported Outcomes and Revision Rates at a Mean Follow-up of 10 Years After Lumbar Total Disc Replacement

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the long-term clinical results and prosthesis survival in patients treated with lumbar total disc replacement (TDR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Fusion has become the current standard surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disease. TDR is an alternative treatment that seeks to avoid fusion-related adverse events, specifically adjacent segment disease.

METHODS

Sixty-eight consecutive patients treated with TDR from 2003 to 2008 were invited to follow-up and complete a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Short Form-36. These surveys were also administered to the subjects before their index TDRs. Data on reoperation were collected from the patients' medical records.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven (84%) patients were available for follow-up at a mean 10.6 years post-operatively (range 8.1-12.6 years). There was a significant improvement from preop to latest follow-up in VAS (6.8 vs. 3.2, P < 0.000) and DPQ (63.2 vs. 45.6, P = 0.000) in the entire cohort. Nineteen patients (33%) had a revision fusion surgery after their index TDR. Patients who had revision surgery had statistically significant worse outcome scores at last follow-up than patients who had no revision. Thirty patients (52.6%) would choose the same treatment again if they were faced with the same problem.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated significant improvement in long-term clinical outcomes, similar to previously published studies, and two-thirds of the discus prostheses were still functioning at follow-up. However, there is still a lack of well-designed long-term studies, thus requiring further investigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Lumbar subtotal corpectomy non-fusion model produced using a novel prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to design a movable artificial lumbar complex (MALC) prosthesis for non-fusion reconstruction after lumbar subtotal corpectomy and to establish an in vitro anterolateral lumbar corpectomy non-fusion model for evaluating the biomechanical stability, preservation of segment movements and influence on adjacent inter-vertebral movements of this prosthesis.

METHODS

Imaging was performed on a total of 26 fresh goat lumbar spine specimens to determine which of the specimens did not meet the requirements (free of deformity and fractures); the residual specimens were randomly divided into an intact group, a fusion group and a non-fusion group. Bone mineral density (BMD) was tested and compared among the three groups. Biomechanical testing was conducted to obtain the range of motion (ROM) in flexion-extension, lateral bending at L2-3, L3-4 and L4-5 and axial rotation at L2-5 in the three groups.

RESULTS

Two specimens were excluded due to vertebral fractures. BMD showed no statistical significance among three groups (P > 0.05). The stability of the prosthesis did not differ significantly during flexion, extension, and lateral bending at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 and axial torsion at L2-5 between the intact group and the non-fusion group (P > 0.05). Segment movements of the specimens in the non-fusion group revealed significantly decreased L2-3 ROM and significantly increased L3-4 and L4-5 ROM in flexion and lateral bending compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction with a MALC prosthesis after lumbar subtotal corpectomy not only produced instant stability but also effectively preserved segment movements, without any abnormal gain of mobility in adjacent inter-vertebral spaces. However, additional studies, including in vivo animal experiments as well as biocompatibility and biomechanical tests of human body specimens are needed.

Failure to Launch: What the Rejection of Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Tells us About American Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Spine surgeon survey.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the failure of widespread adoption of lumbar total disk replacement (L-TDR) in the United States.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

L-TDR has been available for use in the United States since 2005. L-TDR has not gained wide acceptance as a treatment for degenerative disk disease despite substantial investments in product development and positive results in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Estimates of the number of L-TDR procedures performed in the United States from 2005 to 2010 were calculated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Insurance policies were assessed for L-TDR coverage through Internet search. Finally, an 18-question survey regarding surgeons' opinions toward L-TDR was distributed to the members of North American Spine Society.

RESULTS

The estimated number of primary L-TDR procedures performed in the United States decreased from 3650 in 2005 to 1863 in 2010, whereas revision L-TDR procedures increased from 420 to 499. Of 14 major insurers, 11 (78.6%) do not cover L-TDR. In total, 613 spine surgeons responded to the survey. Over half of respondents (51.1%, 313/612) have performed L-TDR, although only 44.6% (136/305) of initial adopters currently perform the surgery. However, 81.5% (106/130) of those currently performing L-TDR have been satisfied with the results. When asked about their perceptions of L-TDR, 65.0% (367/565) indicated a lack of insurance coverage for L-TDR in their region, 54.9% (310/565) worry about long-term complications, and 52.7% (298/565) worry about the technical challenges of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite early enthusiasm for L-TDR, wide adoption has not occurred. A primary reason for this failure seems to be a lack of insurance coverage, despite intermediate-term clinical success. In addition, surgeons continue to express concerns regarding long-term outcomes and the technical difficulties of revision. This case study of a failed surgical innovation may signal increasing involvement of payers in clinical decision-making and may be instructive to surgeons, policymakers, and manufacturers.

Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lumbar disc replacement has been a surgical alternative to fusion surgery for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) for many years. Despite enthusiasm after the approval of the first devices, implantation rates have remained low, especially in the USA. The goal of this review is to provide a general overview of lumbar disc replacement in order to comprehend the successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a large amount of evidence-based data including satisfactory long-term results is available, implantation rates in the USA have not increased in the last decade. Possible explanations for this include strict indications for use, challenging surgical techniques, lack of device selection, fear of late complications or revision surgeries, and reimbursement issues. Recent publications can address some of the past concerns, but there still remain obstacles to widespread adoption. Upcoming data on long-term outcome, implant durability and possible very late complications will determine the future of lumbar disc replacement surgery.

Evaluation of Aesculap Implant Systems activl Artificial Disc for the treatment of degenerative disc disease

INTRODUCTION

A primary cause of chronic low back pain and disability is lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Surgical treatments are available for DDD including fusion or lumbar total disc replacement (TDR). Lumbar TDR is performed as a motion-preserving alternative to lumbar fusion. There are several marketed lumbar TDR devices including the Aesculap Implant Systems activL Artificial Disc, Charité Artificial Disc and the ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. Areas covered: Considering the various surgical options by which lumbar DDD can be managed, here we evaluate the biologic and biomechanical benefits and concerns of the Aesculap activL Artificial Disc. We review the use of the activL Artificial Disc compared to other lumbar TDRs and an alternative to fusion for skeletally mature patients diagnosed with isolated, symptomatic DDD. Expert commentary: Short-term follow-up studies suggest that under the right circumstances and precise patient selection, lumbar TDR with the Aesculap activL Artificial Disc is a safe and effective alternative to lumbar fusion. Long-term clinical data will provide information about the potential for adjacent level disease, effects of implant wear, and indications for revision surgery. Future clinical and biomechanical studies, as well as device-specific long-term outcome and comparison studies, will assist surgical decision making.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in hybrid constructs for multi-level lumbar degenerative disc disease

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of hybrid constructs which involve a total disc arthroplasty (TDA) with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus non-hybrid constructs including multi-level TDA, multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterior transpedicular fixation or multi-level stand-alone ALIF as a surgical intervention for degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbar spine. Primary outcomes analysed included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar was undertaken by two separate reviewers and a meta-analysis of the outcomes was performed. Three studies met our search criteria. When comparing hybrid constructs to multi-level TDA or lumbar fusion (LF) improvements in back pain were found with a VAS back pain score reduction of 1.38 (P<0.00001) postoperatively and a VAS back pain score reduction of 0.99 points (P=0.0006) at 2-years follow-up. Results so far slightly favour clinically significant improved VAS back pain score outcomes postoperatively and at 2-years follow-up for hybrid constructs in multi-level lumbar DDD of the spine when compared with non-hybrid multi-level LF or TDA. It cannot however be concluded that a hybrid construct is superior to multi-level LF or TDA based on this meta-analysis. The results highlight the need for further prospective studies to delineate best practice in the management of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.

The activL(®) Artificial Disc: a next-generation motion-preserving implant for chronic lumbar discogenic pain

Degeneration of the lumbar intervertebral discs is a leading cause of chronic low back pain in adults. Treatment options for patients with chronic lumbar discogenic pain unresponsive to conservative management include total disc replacement (TDR) or lumbar fusion. Until recently, only two lumbar TDRs had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration - the Charité Artificial Disc in 2004 and the ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement in 2006. In June 2015, a next-generation lumbar TDR received Food and Drug Administration approval - the activL(®) Artificial Disc (Aesculap Implant Systems). Compared to previous-generation lumbar TDRs, the activL(®) Artificial Disc incorporates specific design enhancements that result in a more precise anatomical match and allow a range of motion that better mimics the healthy spine. The results of mechanical and clinical studies demonstrate that the activL(®) Artificial Disc results in improved mechanical and clinical outcomes versus earlier-generation artificial discs and compares favorably to lumbar fusion. The purpose of this report is to describe the activL(®) Artificial Disc including implant characteristics, intended use, surgical technique, postoperative care, mechanical testing, and clinical experience to date.

A meta-analysis comparing total disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical degenerative diseases

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating cervical degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in the electronic databases including Pubmed, Medline, EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, CNKI and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction from archives. All data were performed with Review Manager 5.2 software. The relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for count data. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes were pooled.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine papers were included in meta-analyses. The results of the meta-analysis indicated better neurological success, better overall success, lower incidence of secondary surgical procedures and lower incidence of secondary surgical procedures in TDA group than in ACDF group. After removing a study with considerable weight, TDA group displayed lower incidence of dysphagia and dysphonia than ACDF group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that the clinical outcomes of TDA are equivalent or superior to ACDF.

Lumbar Total Disc Replacement for Discogenic Low Back Pain: Two-year Outcomes of the activL Multicenter Randomized Controlled IDE Clinical Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigational device exemption (IDE) noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD) who are unresponsive to nonsurgical therapy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar TDR has been used to alleviate discogenic pain and dysfunction while preserving segmental range of motion and restoring stability. There is a paucity of data available regarding the comparative performance of lumbar TDR.

METHODS

Patients presenting with symptomatic single-level lumbar DDD who failed at least 6 months of nonsurgical management were randomly allocated (2:1) to treatment with an investigational TDR device (activL, n = 218) or FDA-approved control TDR devices (ProDisc-L or Charité, n = 106). The hypothesis of this study was that a composite effectiveness outcome at 2 years in patients treated with activL would be noninferior (15% delta) to that in controls.

RESULTS

The primary composite endpoint of this study was met, which demonstrated that the activL TDR was noninferior to control TDR (P < 0.001). A protocol-defined analysis of the primary composite endpoint also confirmed that activL was superior to controls (P = 0.02). Radiographic success was higher with activL versus controls (59% vs. 43%; P < 0.01). Mean back pain severity improved by 74% with activL and 68% with controls. Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased by 67% and 61% with activL and controls, respectively. Patient satisfaction with treatment was over 90% in both groups at 2 years. Return to work was approximately 1 month shorter (P = 0.08) with activL versus controls. The rate of device-related serious adverse events was lower in patients treated with activL versus controls (12% vs. 19%; P = 0.13). Surgical reintervention rates at the index level were comparable (activL 2.3%, control 1.9%).

CONCLUSION

The single-level activL TDR is safe and effective for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar DDD through 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: is surgical education safe?

BACKGROUND

Operative skills are key to neurosurgical resident training. They should be acquired in a structured manner and preferably starting early in residency. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the outcome and complication rate of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with or without instrumentation (ACDF(I)) is not inferior for supervised residents as compared to board-certified faculty neurosurgeons (BCFN).

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study of all consecutive patients undergoing ACDF(I)-surgery between January 2011 and August 2014. All procedures were dichotomized into two groups according to the surgeon's level of experience: teaching cases (postgraduate year (PGY)-2 to PGY-6 neurosurgical residents) and non-teaching cases operated by BCFN. The primary study endpoint was patients' clinical outcome 4 weeks after surgery, categorized into a binary responder and non-responder variable. Secondary endpoints were complications, need for re-do surgery, and clinical outcome until the last follow-up.

RESULTS

After exclusion of six cases because of incomplete data, a total of 287 ACDF(I) operations were enrolled into the study, of which 82 (29.2 %) were teaching cases and 199 (70.8 %) were non-teaching cases. Teaching cases required a longer operation time (131 min (95 % confidence interval (CI) 122-141 min) vs. 102 min (95-108 min; p < 0.0001) and were associated with a slightly higher estimated blood loss (84 ml (95 % CI 56-111 ml) vs. 57 ml (95 % CI 47-66 ml); p = 0.0017), while there was no difference in the rate of intraoperative complications (2.4 vs. 1.5 %; p = 0.631). Four weeks after surgery, 92.7 and 93 % of the patients had a positive response to surgery (p = 1.000), respectively. There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate (4.9 vs. 3.0 %; p = 0.307). Around 30 % of the study patients were followed up in outpatient clinics for more than once up until a mean period of 6.4 months (95 % CI 5.3-7.6 months). At the last follow-up, the clinical outcome was similar with a 90 % responder rate for both groups (p = 0.834). In total, five patients from the teaching group and eight patients from the non-teaching group required re-do surgery (p = 0.602).

CONCLUSIONS

Short- and mid-term outcomes and complication rates following microscopic ACDF(I) were comparable for patients operated on by supervised neurosurgical residents or by senior surgeons. Our data thus indicate that a structured neurosurgical education of operative skills does not lead to worse outcomes or increase the complication rates after ACDF(I). Confirmation of the results by a prospective study is desired.

Retrospective study on effectiveness of activ L total disc replacement: clinical and radiographical results of 1- to 3-year follow-up

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of activ L total disc replacement (TDR) on degenerative disc diseases with the clinical and radiographical results.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There are few reports on activ L TDR. This is the first one from China.

METHODS

From March 2009 to March 2012, 32 patients with degenerative disc diseases underwent mono- or bisegmental lumbar TDR. Mean age was 45.1 years (32-58 yr). Clinical outcomes were measured by Oswestry Disability Index and Visual analogue scale pre- and postoperatively (1, 2, and 3 yr). Radiographical parameters as range of motion and intervertebral disc height of the index- and adjacent segments were also measured. Prosthesis subsidence and heterotopic ossification were observed during the follow-up period. Work status was also tracked.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were available for a mean follow-up of 28.8 months and had complete radiographical data. At the final follow-up, the success rate was 86.7%. Visual analogue scale score for low back pain and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index scores significantly improved after surgery. Average intervertebral disc heights of patients with more than 3 years' follow-up at the index segment and upper and lower adjacent segments were 12.87 mm, 12.61 mm, and 11.62 mm, respectively, showing no significant difference compared with preoperative scores. The range of motion of the index and upper adjacent segments showed a significant increase for patients with more than 3 years' follow-up. Changes of range of motion at lower adjacent segment were not significant. We observed tears of the iliac vein in 2 patients, prosthesis subsidence in 3 patients, and heterotopic ossification in 1 patient. At the final follow-up, 18 patients went back to their original work, 8 patients changed jobs, and 4 patients stopped working.

CONCLUSION

The 1- to 3-year follow-up of this cohort of patients showed satisfactory clinical outcomes. The long-term results of activ L TDR need more investigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

ISASS Policy Statement - Lumbar Artificial Disc

PURPOSE

The primary goal of this Policy Statement is to educate patients, physicians, medical providers, reviewers, adjustors, case managers, insurers, and all others involved or affected by insurance coverage decisions regarding lumbar disc replacement surgery.

PROCEDURES

This Policy Statement was developed by a panel of physicians selected by the Board of Directors of ISASS for their expertise and experience with lumbar TDR. The panel's recommendation was entirely based on the best evidence-based scientific research available regarding the safety and effectiveness of lumbar TDR.

Clinical evaluation and surgical decision making for patients with lumbar discogenic pain and facet syndrome

In industrialized countries, more than two thirds of the population suffers from low back pain (LBP) in their lifetime. LBP associated with lumbar disc herniation, stenosis, and instability is a well-known and documented entity. On the other hand, the lumbar discogenic pain and facet syndrome are difficult to be clearly identified, and they are not always detectable by imaging. This article describes the causes of these painful syndromes, which are typically without radicular component, explains the modern diagnostic procedures, and provides guidelines for surgical decision making.