Literature DB >> 17414914

Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels.

Christoph J Siepe1, H Michael Mayer, Matthias Heinz-Leisenheimer, Andreas Korge.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective study analyzing midterm clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) with ProDisc II performed at different lumbar motion segments.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of the disc level and number of discs replaced following TDR on postoperative outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Multisegmental disc replacement procedures belong to the so-called "off-label" indications for disc replacement, which still lack evidence of noninferiority when compared with fusion procedures. Results from uncontrolled clinical trials regarding monosegmental versus multisegmental disc replacements are contradictory.
METHODS: The influence of the level and the number of lumbar discs replaced on postoperative outcome was analyzed prospectively according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and numerous clinical parameters. Post-TDR pain patterns were analyzed with fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations.
RESULTS: A total of 99 patients from 3 treatment groups with a mean follow-up of 25.8 months (range, 12.1-57.5 months) achieved significant improvement of preoperative VAS and ODI levels (P < 0.05). Best results and highest patient satisfaction rates (90.9%) were achieved in patients with monosegmental TDR at L4-L5 (n = 22). Results deteriorated when monosegmental TDR was performed at the lumbosacral junction (n = 57) with a tendency toward statistical significance at 24-month follow-up (P = 0.07). Postoperative outcome was significantly inferior following bisegmental disc replacements at L4-L5 + L5-S1 (n = 20) with a considerably higher complication rate when compared with monosegmental TDR procedures. Fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations confirmed that the incidence of postoperative pain from posterior joint structures was 9.1% (n = 2) for L4-L5 TDR, 28.1% (n = 16) following L5-S1, and 60.0% (n = 12) for bisegmental-TDR at L4-L5 + L5-S1, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The level and the number of lumbar disc replacements influence postoperative outcome significantly. Satisfactory outcome was achieved for monosegmental L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc replacement procedures with best results achieved following TDR at L4-L5. For bisegmental TDR, complication rates are significantly higher and inferior postoperative results are to be expected. The incidence of postoperative pain originating from facet and/or iliosacral joints is currently underestimated and will require further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17414914     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000259071.64027.04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  39 in total

1.  Predictors of outcome after surgery with disc prosthesis and rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Christian Hellum; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Øyvind Gjertsen; Linda Berg; Gesche Neckelmann; Oliver Grundnes; Ivar Rossvoll; Jan Sture Skouen; Jens Ivar Brox; Kjersti Storheim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Influence of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration on the outcome of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, histological, X-ray and MRI investigation.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Elisabeth Haas; Wolfgang Hitzl; Ulrike Szeimies; Axel Stäbler; Christoph Weiler; Andreas G Nerlich; Michael H Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Karsten Wiechert; Mohamed F Khattab; Andreas Korge; H Michael Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-05       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Prospective clinical and radiographic results of CHARITÉ III artificial total disc arthroplasty at 2- to 7-year follow-up: a Canadian experience.

Authors:  Michael Katsimihas; Christopher S Bailey; Khalil Issa; Jennifer Fleming; Patricia Rosas-Arellano; Stewart I Bailey; Kevin R Gurr
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Use of a personalized hybrid biomechanical model to assess change in lumbar spine function with a TDR compared to an intact spine.

Authors:  Gregory G Knapik; Ehud Mendel; William S Marras
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Jianqiang Ni et al. concerning "ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial" by Hoff EK, Strube P, Pumberger M, et al. (2015) Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3852-y.

Authors:  Michael Putzier; Patrick Strube
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial.

Authors:  Eike K Hoff; Patrick Strube; Matthias Pumberger; Robert K Zahn; Michael Putzier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Jianqiang Ni et al. concerning "Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation" by Siepe C.J., et al. Eur Spine J (2014): DOI 10.1007/s00586-014-3642-y.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; V Ewerbeck; A J Suda; C Carstens
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  Hybrid construct for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine.

Authors:  Stephane Aunoble; Robert Meyrat; Yasser Al Sawad; C Tournier; Philip Leijssen; Jean-Charles Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.