INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine the clinical outcome of single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement (ADR) compared to that of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD) in an Asian population. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 74 patients who had surgery performed for discogenic lower backs that involved only the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. All the patients had lumbar DDD without radiculopathy or spondylolithesis, and concordant pain with discogram at the pathological level. The patients were divided into two groups--those who underwent ADR and those who underwent TLIF. RESULTS: A trend suggesting that the ADR group had better perioperative outcomes (less blood loss, shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay and shorter time to ambulation) than the TLIF group was observed. However, a trend indicating that surgical-approach-related complications occurred more frequently in the ADR group than the TLIF group was also observed. The rate of revision surgery was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that for the treatment of discogenic lower back pain, lumbar ADR has better perioperative outcomes and a similar revision rate when compared with TLIF. However, the use of ADR was associated with a higher incidence of surgical-approach-related complications. More studies with bigger cohort sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of ADR in lumbar DDD.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine the clinical outcome of single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement (ADR) compared to that of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD) in an Asian population. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 74 patients who had surgery performed for discogenic lower backs that involved only the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. All the patients had lumbar DDD without radiculopathy or spondylolithesis, and concordant pain with discogram at the pathological level. The patients were divided into two groups--those who underwent ADR and those who underwent TLIF. RESULTS: A trend suggesting that the ADR group had better perioperative outcomes (less blood loss, shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay and shorter time to ambulation) than the TLIF group was observed. However, a trend indicating that surgical-approach-related complications occurred more frequently in the ADR group than the TLIF group was also observed. The rate of revision surgery was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that for the treatment of discogenic lower back pain, lumbar ADR has better perioperative outcomes and a similar revision rate when compared with TLIF. However, the use of ADR was associated with a higher incidence of surgical-approach-related complications. More studies with bigger cohort sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of ADR in lumbar DDD.
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
Authors: Russel C Huang; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa; Moe R Lim; Patrick Tropiano; Thierry Marnay Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jack E Zigler; Timothy A Burd; Emiliano N Vialle; Barton L Sachs; Ralph F Rashbaum; Donna D Ohnmeiss Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2003-08
Authors: Karin D van den Eerenbeemt; Raymond W Ostelo; Barend J van Royen; Wilco C Peul; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 3.134