STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare clinical and radiologic outcomes of the CHARITE and ProDisc. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is no clinical report comparing CHARITE and ProDisc. METHODS: Among a total of 61 patients who underwent total disc replacement, 57 patients followed more than 3 years were enrolled. The CHARITE was used in 33 patients and ProDisc in 24. MRI follow-up was possible in 52 patients. Clinical and radiologic data including range of motion (ROM) and facet degeneration of the replaced segment, and degeneration of the disc at the adjacent level were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean percentage improvement of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was 78.9% in the CHARITE group and 75.8% in ProDisc group. The mean improvement of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score was 72% in the CHARITE and 74.2% in ProDisc. There was no statistical difference between 2 groups in improvement rates either of the ODI scores and VAS scores. Degradation of the facets was seen in 36.4% of the CHARITE and 32% of the ProDisc. Degradation of disc degeneration at the adjacent level above the index level was seen in 19.4% in the CHARITE and 28.6% in the ProDisc. The degradation rates of facet joints and disc at adjacent segment between the 2 groups were not significantly different. Segmental ROM of the replaced segments was well preserved, but ROM of L5-S1 of the ProDisc was significantly less than that of the CHARITE. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical outcomes of both CHARITE and ProDisc groups were fairly good, the facet joint of the index level and the disc at the adjacent level showed an aggravation of the degenerative process in a significant number of patients, regardless of the device used, raising concerns of possible late consequences of total disc replacement, especially regarding facet arthrosis and adjacent segment disease.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare clinical and radiologic outcomes of the CHARITE and ProDisc. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is no clinical report comparing CHARITE and ProDisc. METHODS: Among a total of 61 patients who underwent total disc replacement, 57 patients followed more than 3 years were enrolled. The CHARITE was used in 33 patients and ProDisc in 24. MRI follow-up was possible in 52 patients. Clinical and radiologic data including range of motion (ROM) and facet degeneration of the replaced segment, and degeneration of the disc at the adjacent level were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean percentage improvement of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was 78.9% in the CHARITE group and 75.8% in ProDisc group. The mean improvement of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score was 72% in the CHARITE and 74.2% in ProDisc. There was no statistical difference between 2 groups in improvement rates either of the ODI scores and VAS scores. Degradation of the facets was seen in 36.4% of the CHARITE and 32% of the ProDisc. Degradation of disc degeneration at the adjacent level above the index level was seen in 19.4% in the CHARITE and 28.6% in the ProDisc. The degradation rates of facet joints and disc at adjacent segment between the 2 groups were not significantly different. Segmental ROM of the replaced segments was well preserved, but ROM of L5-S1 of the ProDisc was significantly less than that of the CHARITE. CONCLUSIONS: While clinical outcomes of both CHARITE and ProDisc groups were fairly good, the facet joint of the index level and the disc at the adjacent level showed an aggravation of the degenerative process in a significant number of patients, regardless of the device used, raising concerns of possible late consequences of total disc replacement, especially regarding facet arthrosis and adjacent segment disease.
Authors: Balkan Cakir; Marcus Richter; Werner Schmoelz; René Schmidt; Heiko Reichel; Hans Joachim Wilke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Masoud Malakoutian; David Volkheimer; John Street; Marcel F Dvorak; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 3.134