Literature DB >> 23893083

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

Caroline Sköld1, Hans Tropp, Svante Berg.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) compared with posterior lumbar fusion.
METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled trial comprised 152 patients; 80 were randomized to TDR and 72 to fusion. All patients had chronic low back pain (CLBP) and had not responded to nonsurgical treatment. Primary outcome measure was global assessment of back pain (GA), secondary outcome measures were back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ5D, and SF-36. All measures were collected from SweSpine (Swedish national register for spinal surgery) at 1, 2, and 5 years. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 99.3 %.
RESULTS: Both groups showed clinical improvement at 5-year follow-up. For GA, 38 % (30/80) in the TDR group were totally pain free vs. 15 % (11/71) in the fusion group (p < 0.003). Back pain and improvement of back pain were better in the TDR group: VAS back pain at 5 years 23 ± 29 vs. 31 ± 27, p = 0.009, and VAS improvement of back pain at 5 years 40 ± 32 vs. 28 ± 32, p = 0.022. ODI and improvement in ODI were also better in the TDR group: ODI at 5 years 17 ± 19 vs. 23 + 17, p = 0.02 and ODI improvement at 5 years 25 ± 18 vs. 18 ± 19 (p = 0.02). There was no difference in complications and reoperations between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Global assessment of low back pain differed between the two surgical groups at all follow-up occasions. Significant differences between groups concerning back pain, pain improvement, and ODI were present at 1 year and disappeared at 2 years, but reappeared at the 5-year follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23893083      PMCID: PMC3804684          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2926-y

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  No difference in 9-year outcome in CLBP patients randomized to lumbar fusion versus cognitive intervention and exercises.

Authors:  Anne Froholdt; Olav Reikeraas; Inger Holm; Anne Keller; Jens Ivar Brox
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: a Cochrane review.

Authors:  Wilco C H Jacobs; Niels A van der Gaag; Moyo C Kruyt; Alexander Tuschel; Marinus de Kleuver; Wilco C Peul; Abraham J Verbout; F Cumhur Oner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Disc height and motion patterns in the lumbar spine in patients operated with total disc replacement or fusion for discogenic back pain. Results from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Hans T Tropp; Gunnar Leivseth
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Per Wessberg; Anders Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

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

Authors:  Svante Berg; Tycho Tullberg; Björn Branth; Claes Olerud; Hans Tropp
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Authors:  Roger Chou; Jamie Baisden; Eugene J Carragee; Daniel K Resnick; William O Shaffer; John D Loeser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Results from a randomized controlled study between total disc replacement and fusion compared with results from a spine register.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Hans Tropp
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2010-09-01

10.  Four-year follow-up of surgical versus non-surgical therapy for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Jens Ivar Brox; Øystein P Nygaard; Inger Holm; Anne Keller; Tor Ingebrigtsen; Olav Reikerås
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2009-07-26       Impact factor: 19.103

View more
  20 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland Yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2013.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical research" articles in the European Spine Journal 2014.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-03       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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

5.  CORR Insights®: Periprosthetic UHMWPE Wear Debris Induces Inflammation, Vascularization, and Innervation After Total Disc Replacement in the Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  Timothy M Wright
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Maverick total disc arthroplasty performs well at 10 years follow-up: a prospective study with HRQL and balance analysis.

Authors:  N Plais; X Thevenot; A Cogniet; J Rigal; J C Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Viscoelastic Disc Arthroplasty Provides Superior Back and Leg Pain Relief in Patients with Lumbar Disc Degeneration Compared to Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Burkhard Rischke; Kari B Zimmers; Eric Smith
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-01

8.  Five-year results of lumbar disc prostheses in the SWISSspine registry.

Authors:  Emin Aghayev; Christian Etter; Christian Bärlocher; Friedrich Sgier; Philippe Otten; Paul Heini; Oliver Hausmann; Gianluca Maestretti; Martin Baur; François Porchet; Thomas M Markwalder; Stefan Schären; Michal Neukamp; Christoph Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The 'Lumbar Fusion Outcome Score' (LUFOS): a new practical and surgically oriented grading system for preoperative prediction of surgical outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion in patients with degenerative disc disease and refractory chronic axial low back pain.

Authors:  Tobias A Mattei; Azeem A Rehman; Alisson R Teles; Jean C Aldag; Dzung H Dinh; Todd D McCall
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-06-11       Impact factor: 3.042

10.  Lumbar total disc replacement: predictors for long-term outcome.

Authors:  Håvard Furunes; Christian Hellum; Jens Ivar Brox; Ivar Rossvoll; Ansgar Espeland; Linda Berg; Helga Maria Brøgger; Milada Cvancarova Småstuen; Kjersti Storheim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.