Literature DB >> 35922636

In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration?

Jack E Zigler1, Richard D Guyer2, Scott L Blumenthal2, Alexander M Satin3, Jessica L Shellock2, Donna D Ohnmeiss2,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why spine surgeons subspecializing in total disc replacement (TDR) performed lumbar fusion rather than TDR.
METHODS: The study was based on a consecutive series of 515 patients undergoing lumbar TDR or fusion during a 5-year period by three surgeons specializing in TDR. For each fusion patient, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded.
RESULTS: TDR was performed in 65.4% (n = 337) of patients and the remaining 34.6% (n = 178) underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF ± posterior instrumentation). Of the 178 fusion patients, the most common reason for fusion was combined factors related to severe degenerative changes (n = 59, 11.5% of the study population). The second most common reason was > Grade 1 spondylolisthesis (n = 32, 6.2%), followed by insurance non-coverage (n = 24, 4.7%), and osteopenia/osteoporosis (n = 13, 2.5%). Fusion patients were significantly older than TDR patients (52.5 vs. 41.6 years; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to gender (41.2% female vs. 43.8% female, p > 0.05) or the percentage of patients with single-level surgery (61.2% vs. 56.7%, p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The most common reason for not performing lumbar TDR was related to anatomic factors that may compromise stability of the operated segment and/or TDR functionality. The older age of fusion patients may be related to these factors. This study found that many patients are appropriate candidates for lumbar TDR. However, even among TDR subspecialists, fusion is preferred when there are factors that cannot be addressed with TDR and/or may compromise implant functionality.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Lumbar spine; indications; Total disc replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35922636     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07282-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   2.721


  22 in total

1.  Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Richard D Guyer; Paul C McAfee; Robert J Banco; Fabian D Bitan; Andrew Cappuccino; Fred H Geisler; Stephen H Hochschuler; Richard T Holt; Louis G Jenis; Mohamed E Majd; John J Regan; Scott G Tromanhauser; Douglas C Wong; Scott L Blumenthal
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 4.166

2.  Five-Year Reoperation Rates of 2-Level Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Versus Fusion: Results of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Kris Radcliff; Jeffrey Spivak; Bruce Darden; Michael Janssen; Thierry Bernard; Jack Zigler
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.876

3.  Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: 5-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick disc investigational device exemption study.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; J Kenneth Burkus; Randall F Dryer; John H Peloza; Francine W Schranck; Anne G Copay
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2019-05-17

4.  Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis.

Authors:  David A Wong; Betsy Annesser; Tim Birney; Roderick Lamond; Anant Kumar; Stephen Johnson; Sanjay Jatana; Gary Ghiselli
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  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

6.  Comparison of results of total disc replacement in postdiscectomy patients versus patients with no previous lumbar surgery.

Authors:  Michael Leahy; Jack E Zigler; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Ralph F Rashbaum; Barton L Sachs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Lumbar Total Disc Replacement for Discogenic Low Back Pain: Two-year Outcomes of the activL Multicenter Randomized Controlled IDE Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Rolando Garcia; James J Yue; Scott Blumenthal; Dom Coric; Vikas V Patel; Scott P Leary; Dzung H Dinh; Glenn R Buttermann; Harel Deutsch; Federico Girardi; James Billys; Larry E Miller
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain.

Authors:  Rick C Sasso; David M Foulk; Michael Hahn
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Jack E Zigler; Rick B Delamarter
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-10-19

Review 10.  The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.