Literature DB >> 17972116

Analysis of post-operative pain patterns following total lumbar disc replacement: results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations.

Christoph J Siepe1, Andreas Korge, Frank Grochulla, Christoph Mehren, H Michael Mayer.   

Abstract

Although a variety of biomechanical laboratory investigations and radiological studies have highlighted the potential problems associated with total lumbar disc replacement (TDR), no previous study has performed a systematic clinical failure analysis. The aim of this study was to identify the post-operative pain sources, establish the incidence of post-operative pain patterns and investigate the effect on post-operative outcome with the help of fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations in patients from an ongoing prospective study with ProDisc II. Patients who reported unsatisfactory results at any of the FU-examinations received fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations as part of a semi-invasive diagnostic and conservative treatment program. Pain sources were identified in patients with reproducible (> or =2x) significant (50-75%) or highly significant (75-100%) pain relief. Results were correlated with outcome parameters visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the subjective patient satisfaction rate. From a total of 175 operated patients with a mean follow-up (FU) of 29.3 months (range 12.2-74.9 months), n = 342 infiltrations were performed in n = 58 patients (33.1%) overall. Facet joint pain, predominantly at the index level (86.4%), was identified in n = 22 patients (12.6%). The sacroiliac joint was a similarly frequent cause of post-operative pain (n = 21, 12.0%). Pain from both structures influenced all outcome parameters negatively (P < 0.05). Patients with an early onset of pain (< or =6 months) were 2-5x higher at risk of developing persisting complaints and unsatisfactory outcome at later FU-stages in comparison to the entire study cohort (P < 0.05). The level of TDR significantly influenced post-operative outcome. Best results were achieved for the TDRs above the lumbosacral junction at L4/5 (incidence of posterior joint pain 14.8%). Inferior outcome and a significantly higher incidence of posterior joint pain were observed for TDR at L5/S1 (21.6%) and bisegmental TDR at L4/5/S1 (33.3%), respectively. Lumbar facet and/or ISJ-pain are a frequent and currently underestimated source of post-operative pain and the most common reasons for unsatisfactory results following TDR. Further failure-analysis studies are required and adequate salvage treatment options need to be established with respect to the underlying pathology of post-operative pain. The question as to whether or not TDR will reduce the incidence of posterior joint pain, which has been previously attributed to lumbar fusion procedures, remains unanswered. Additional studies will have to investigate whether TDR compromises the index-segment in an attempt to avoid adjacent segment degeneration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17972116      PMCID: PMC2365532          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0519-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  68 in total

1.  Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Rolando M Puno; John R Dimar; Steven D Glassman; John R Johnson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  [Sagittal alignment and segmental range of motion after total disc replacement of the lumbar spine].

Authors:  B Cakir; R Schmidt; K Huch; W Puhl; M Richter
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr

Review 3.  Assessing the potential impact of total disc arthroplasty on surgeon practice patterns in North America.

Authors:  Kern Singh; Alexander R Vaccaro; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum.

Authors:  Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Mark V Boswell
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2005-02

Review 5.  Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000.

Authors:  J P Lemaire; W Skalli; F Lavaste; A Templier; F Mendes; A Diop; V Sauty; E Laloux
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment.

Authors:  J A Goulet; L E Senunas; G L DeSilva; M L Greenfield
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The facet joint and its role in spine pain. Management with facet joint injections.

Authors:  A B Lippitt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; J Couper; J B Davies; J P O'Brien
Journal:  Physiotherapy       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 3.358

9.  Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients.

Authors:  W S Zeegers; L M Bohnen; M Laaper; M J Verhaegen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bryan W Cunningham
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  22 in total

1.  [Treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis with an interspinous spacer].

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Rudolf Beisse; H Michael Mayer; Andreas Korge
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

2.  Resect or not to resect: the role of posterior longitudinal ligament in lumbar total disc replacement.

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

3.  In silico evaluation of a new composite disc substitute with a L3-L5 lumbar spine finite element model.

Authors:  Jérôme Noailly; Luigi Ambrosio; K Elizabeth Tanner; Josep A Planell; Damien Lacroix
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-05       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2009.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal 2012.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Effect of prosthesis endplate lordosis angles on L5-S1 kinematics after disc arthroplasty.

Authors:  Parmenion P Tsitsopoulos; Bartosz Wojewnik; Leonard I Voronov; Robert M Havey; Susan M Renner; Julia Zelenakova; Braden McIntosh; Gerard Carandang; Celeste Abjornson; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Circumferential dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Wolfram Käfer; Balkan Cakir; Stefan Midderhoff; Heiko Reichel; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Clinical, radiological, histological and retrieval findings of Activ-L and Mobidisc total disc replacements: a study of two patients.

Authors:  Shennah Austen; Ilona M Punt; Jack P M Cleutjens; Paul C Willems; Steven M Kurtz; Daniel W MacDonald; Lodewijk W van Rhijn; André van Ooij
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Comparison of single-level L4-L5 versus L5-S1 lumbar disc replacement: results and prognostic factors.

Authors:  Riccardo Sinigaglia; Albert Bundy; Sandro Costantini; Ugo Nena; Francesco Finocchiaro; Daniele A Fabris Monterumici
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.