Literature DB >> 18594464

Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty.

James S Harrop1, Jim A Youssef, Mitch Maltenfort, Peggy Vorwald, Pascal Jabbour, Christopher M Bono, Neil Goldfarb, Alexander R Vaccaro, Alan S Hilibrand.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review of published incidence of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASDis) after arthrodesis or total disc replacement.
OBJECTIVE: Assess impact of surgery method and other factors on the incidence of ASDeg and ASDis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Twenty-seven articles, none of which were class I or II, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty involved arthrodesis (1732 patients) and 7 involved arthroplasty (758 patients). Nineteen detailed ASDeg and 16 detailed ASDis.
METHODS: Data were established for number of patients, gender, average patient age, incidence of ASDeg and ASDis, average time to follow-up, and level and type of surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify which parameters had a significant effect on the incidence of ASDeg and ASDis.
RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen of 926 patients in the arthrodesis group (34%) and 31 out of 313 patients in the total disc replacement group (9%) developed ASDeg. (P < 0.0001) Multivariate logistic regression indicated that higher odds of ASDeg were associated with: older patients (P < 0.001); arthodesis (P = 0.0008); and longer follow-up (P = 0.0025). For ASDis, 173/1216 (14%) arthrodesis patients developed ASDis compared to 7/595 (1%) of arthroplasty patients (P < 0.0001). Using multivariate logistic regression, higher odds of ASDis were seen in studies with fusion (P < 0.0001), higher percentages of male patients (P = 0.0019), and shorter follow-up (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Analysis of the literature suggests a correlation between fusion and the development of ASDeg compared to arthroplasty, but this association is dampened by the influence of patient age. There is a stronger correlation between fusion and ASDis compared to arthroplasty. The data supports only a class C recommendation (lowest tier) for the use of arthroplasty to reduce ASDis and disc degeneration compared to arthrodesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18594464     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bb956

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


  96 in total

1.  Video-assisted minimally invasive lumbar total disc replacement.

Authors:  Roberto Bassani; Aldo Sinigaglia; Claudio Lamartina
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Authors:  Alex Alfieri; Roberto Gazzeri; Julian Prell; Christian Scheller; Jens Rachinger; Christian Strauss; Andreas Schwarz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  Reliability of change in lumbar MRI findings over time in patients with and without disc prosthesis--comparing two different image evaluation methods.

Authors:  Linda Berg; Oivind Gjertsen; Christian Hellum; Gesche Neckelmann; Lars G Johnsen; Geir E Eide; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Analysis of biomechanical changes after removal of instrumentation in lumbar arthrodesis by finite element analysis.

Authors:  Ho-Joong Kim; Heoung-Jae Chun; Seong-Hwan Moon; Kyoung-Tak Kang; Hak-Sun Kim; Jin-Oh Park; Eun-Su Moon; Joon-Seok Sohn; Hwan-Mo Lee
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Preferential superior surface motion in wear simulations of the Charité total disc replacement.

Authors:  Curtis M Goreham-Voss; Rachel Vicars; Richard M Hall; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-26       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Segmental lumbar rotation in patients with discogenic low back pain during functional weight-bearing activities.

Authors:  Peter G Passias; Shaobai Wang; Michal Kozanek; Qun Xia; Weishi Li; Brian Grottkau; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fanor M Saavedra-Pozo; Renato A M Deusdara; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 8.  [Adjacent segment movement after monosegmental total disc replacement and monosegmental fusion of segments L4/5].

Authors:  M Däxle; T Kocak; F Lattig; H Reichel; B Cakir
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 9.  Mechanical design criteria for intervertebral disc tissue engineering.

Authors:  Nandan L Nerurkar; Dawn M Elliott; Robert L Mauck
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.712

10.  Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up.

Authors:  José I Maruenda; Carlos Barrios; Felipe Garibo; Borja Maruenda
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.