The Fernstrom ball revisited

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Long-Term Outcomes Following Cervical Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Introduction The traditional treatment for patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy caused by degenerative disc disease was anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, a documented complication of ACDF is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). An alternative that was developed was total disc replacement (TDR). The aim of this study was to determine and compare the short- and medium-to-long-term outcomes after a TDR or ACDF. Methods A retrospective review of 154 patients who had single and two-level ACDFs and 90 TDRs performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017 was conducted. Parameters for comparisons include both radiological evaluation and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) at six weeks, one year, and two years postoperatively. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain are used to evaluate pain, function, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical success. Results TDR and ACDF showed significant improvement in NDI and VAS when compared to pre- and post-operatively at both six weeks (p<0.05 & P=0.032, respectively) and two years (p<0.05 & 0=0.026, respectively). TDR vs. ACDF showed no significant difference (p<0.05). VAS scores after ACDF showed improvement from 13.41 to 3.94 at two years (p<0.001). TDR showed similar scores of 12.5 to 3.55 (p<0.001). The radiological fusion rate at 12 or 24 months showed no significant difference between the two groups. There were two cases that required re-operation after ACDF (1.2%), and two that required TDR (2.2%). Conclusion Both TDR and ACDF lead to clinically significant improvements in pain and function scores. We did not find a statistically significant difference in NDI and VAS in the neck and arm. The results are in agreement with others' assessments of these two treatment modalities. Our conclusions supplement the literature about these operative options for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and are a useful addition to the armamentarium in the assessment of patients with degenerative pathology of the c-spine.

Effect of a strutted intradiscal spacer (DIVA®) on disc reherniation following lumbar discectomy: A 2-year retrospective matched cohort study

Introduction

Discectomy for lumbar disc herniation has a high rate of reoperation and recurrent herniation.

Methods

Retrospectively matched cohort of patients undergoing lumbar discectomy alone or with a strutted intradiscal spacer.

Results

133 discectomy and 112 patients with discectomy plus spacer were included. Pain and disability scores were significantly lower for both groups at 2 years. Patients receiving a strutted intradiscal spacer following discectomy had a reduced rate of all-cause reoperations and operations for recurrent herniations compared to discectomy alone.

Conclusion

Use of a strutted intradiscal spacer following discectomy improves surgical outcomes following surgery for lumbar herniation versus discectomy alone.

Lumbar Disk Arthroplasty for Degenerative Disk Disease: Literature Review

Low back pain is the principal cause of long-term disability worldwide. We intend to address one of its main causes, degenerative disk disease, a spinal condition involving degradation of an intervertebral disk. Following unsuccessful conservative treatment, patients may be recommended for surgery. The two main surgical treatments for lumbar degenerative disk disease are lumbar fusion: traditional standard surgical treatment and lumbar disk arthroplasty, also known as lumbar total disk replacement. Lumbar fusion aims to relieve pain by fusing vertebrae together to eliminate movement at the joint, but it has been criticized for problems involving insignificant pain relief, a reduced range of motion, and an increased risk of adjacent segment degeneration. This leads to development of the lumbar total disk replacement technique, which aims to relieve pain replacing a degenerated intervertebral disk with a moveable prosthesis, thus mimicking the functional anatomy and biomechanics of a native intervertebral disk. Over the years a large range of prosthetic disks has been developed. The efficacy and current evidence for these prostheses are discussed in this review. The results of this study are intended to guide clinical practice and future lumbar total disk replacement device choice and design.

Adjacent-segment disease in 511 cases of posterolateral instrumented lumbar arthrodesis: floating fusion versus distal construct including the sacrum

OBJECT

The aim of this study was to study the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing instrumented posterior fusion of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

The authors present 511 patients who underwent instrumented arthrodesis for lumbar degenerative disease over a 23-year period at a single institution. Patients underwent follow-up for an average of 39.73 ± 46.52 months (± SD) after the index lumbar arthrodesis procedure.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 59.45 ± 13.48 years. Of the 511 patients, 502 (98.24%) presented with back pain, 379 (74.17%) with radiculopathy, 76 (14.87%) with motor weakness, and 32 (6.26%) with preoperative bowel/bladder dysfunction. An average of 2.04 ± 1.03 spinal levels were fused. Postoperatively, patients experienced a significant improvement in back pain (p < 0.0001) and radiculopathy (p < 0.0001). Patients with fusions excluding the sacrum (floating fusions) were statistically more likely to develop adjacent-segment disease (ASD) than those with fusion constructs ending at S-1 distally (p = 0.030) but were less likely to develop postoperative radiculopathy (p = 0.030). In the floating fusion cohort, 31 (12.11%) of 256 patients had cephalad ASD, whereas 39 (15.29%) of 255 patients in the lumbosacral cohort had cephalad ASD development; this was not statistically different (p = 0.295). This suggests that caudad ASD development in the floating fusion cohort is due to the added risk of an unfused L5-S1 vertebral level. Because of the elevated risk of symptomatic radiculopathy but lower risk of ASD, patients in the lumbosacral fusion cohort had a reoperation rate similar to those undergoing floating fusions (p = 0.769).

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the authors present one of the largest cohorts in the Western literature of patients undergoing instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease. Patients who had floating lumbar fusions were statistically more likely to develop ASD over time than those who had lumbosacral fusions incorporating the S-1 spinal segment, but were less likely to experience postoperative radicular symptoms. Additional prospective studies may more clearly delineate the long-term risks of instrumented posterolateral fusions of the lumbar spine.