Literature DB >> 19506919

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up.

Svante Berg1, Tycho Tullberg, Björn Branth, Claes Olerud, Hans Tropp.   

Abstract

The study design includes a prospective, randomised controlled study comparing total disc replacement (TDR) with posterior fusion. The main objective of this study is to compare TDR with lumbar spinal fusion, in terms of clinical outcome, in patients referred to a spine clinic for surgical evaluation. Fusion is effective for treating chronic low back pain (LBP), but has drawbacks, such as stiffness and possibly adjacent level degradation. Motion-preserving options have emerged, of which TDR is frequently used because of these drawbacks. How the results of TDR compare to fusion, however, is uncertain. One hundred and fifty-two patients with a mean age of 40 years (21-55) were included: 90 were women, and 80 underwent TDR. The patients had not responded to a conservative treatment programme and suffered from predominantly LBP, with varying degrees of leg pain. Diagnosis was based on clinical examination, radiographs, MRI, and in unclear cases, diagnostic injections. Outcome measures were global assessment (GA), VAS for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, SF36 and EQ5D at 1 and 2 years. Follow-up rate was 100%, at both 1 and 2 years. All outcome variables improved in both groups between preoperative and follow-up assessment. The primary outcome measure, GA, revealed that 30% in the TDR group and 15% in the fusion group were totally pain-free at 2 years (P = 0.031). TDR patients had reached maximum recovery in virtually all variables at 1 year, with significant differences compared to the fusion group. The fusion patients continued to improve and at 2 years had results similar to TDR patients apart from numbers of pain-free. Complications and reoperations were similar in both groups, but pedicle screw removal as additive surgery, was frequent in the fusion group. One year after surgery, TDR was superior to spinal fusion in clinical outcome, but this difference had diminished by 2 years, apart from (VAS for back pain and) numbers of pain-free. The long-term benefits have yet to be examined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19506919      PMCID: PMC2899375          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1047-0

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


  27 in total

1.  History and evolution of disc replacement.

Authors:  Christopher M Bono; Steven R Garfin
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

2.  Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up.

Authors:  J C Le Huec; H Mathews; Y Basso; S Aunoble; D Hoste; B Bley; T Friesem
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  One-year report from the Swedish National Spine Register. Swedish Society of Spinal Surgeons.

Authors:  Björn Strömqvist; Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Bo Jönsson
Journal:  Acta Orthop Suppl       Date:  2005-10

4.  Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment.

Authors:  Anton E Dmitriev; Norman W Gill; Timothy R Kuklo; Michael K Rosner
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up.

Authors:  Rudolf Bertagnoli; James J Yue; Rahul V Shah; Regina Nanieva; Frank Pfeiffer; Andrea Fenk-Mayer; Trace Kershaw; Daniel S Husted
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study.

Authors:  Jc Le Huec; Y Basso; H Mathews; A Mehbod; S Aunoble; T Friesem; T Zdeblick
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  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

8.  A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Scott Blumenthal; Paul C McAfee; Richard D Guyer; Stephen H Hochschuler; Fred H Geisler; Richard T Holt; Rolando Garcia; John J Regan; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review.

Authors:  J N Alastair Gibson; Gordon Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charité intervertebral disc. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004.

Authors:  Fred H Geisler; Scott L Blumenthal; Richard D Guyer; Paul C McAfee; John J Regan; J Patrick Johnson; Bradford Mullin
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2004-09
View more
  48 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

Review 2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011.

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Influence of the loading frequency on the wear rate of a polyethylene-on-metal lumbar intervertebral disc replacement.

Authors:  Annette Kettler; Michael Bushelow; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-10       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-09-30

5.  Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Caroline Sköld; Hans Tropp; Svante Berg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Anterior lumbar discectomy and disc replacement.

Authors:  Dick Zeilstra; Wolter Oosterhuis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.

Authors:  Stephan N Salzmann; Nicolas Plais; Jennifer Shue; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

Review 9.  Strategies towards injectable, load-bearing materials for the intervertebral disc: a review and outlook.

Authors:  Cecilia Persson; Svante Berg
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2012-09-29       Impact factor: 3.896

10.  Complications and Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty and Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Claire D Eliasberg; Michael P Kelly; Remi M Ajiboye; Nelson F SooHoo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.