ProDisc-L learning curve: 24-Month clinical and radiographic outcomes in 44 consecutive cases

Learning curve analyses in spine surgery: a systematic simulation-based critique of methodologies

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Various statistical approaches exist to delineate learning curves in spine surgery. Techniques range from dividing cases into intervals for metric comparison, to employing regression and cumulative summation (CUSUM) analyses. However, their inherent inconsistencies and methodological flaws limit their comparability and reliability.

PURPOSE

To critically evaluate the methodologies used in existing literature for studying learning curves in spine surgery and to provide recommendations for future research.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, covering articles from January 2010 to September 2023. For inclusion, articles had to evaluate the change in a metric of performance during human spine surgery across time/a case series. Results had to be reported in sufficient detail to allow for evaluation of individual performance rather than group/institutional performance. Articles were excluded if they included cadaveric/nonhuman subjects, aggregated performance data or no way to infer change across a number of cases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Surgical data were simulated using Python 3 and then examined via multiple commonly used analytic approaches including division into consecutive intervals, regression and CUSUM techniques. Results were qualitatively assessed to determine the effectiveness and limitations of each approach in depicting a learning curve.

RESULTS

About 113 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were retrospective and evaluated a single-surgeon's experience. Methods varied considerably, with 66 studies using a single proficiency metric and 47 using more than 1. Operating time was the most commonly used metric. Interval division was the simplest and most commonly used method yet inherent limitations prevent collective synthesis. Regression may accurately describe the learning curve but in practice is hampered by sample size and model choice. CUSUM analyses are of widely varying quality with some being fundamentally flawed and widely misinterpreted however, others provide a reliable view of the learning process.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable variation in the quality of existing studies on learning curves in spine surgery. CUSUM analyses, when correctly applied, offer the most reliable estimates. To improve the validity and comparability of future studies, adherence to methodological guidelines is crucial. Multiple or composite performance metrics are necessary for a holistic understanding of the learning process.

Mid- to long-term results of total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review

Background

Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes with few complications and reoperations at short-term follow-up, but the mid- to long-term results are not clear.

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes of artificial TDR for lumbar degenerative disc diseases.

Patients and methods

A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed database to identify studies of TDR surgery that included at least 3 years of follow-up. The search keywords were as follows: lumbar, total disc replacement, and arthroplasty. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, satisfactory rate, clinical success rate, complications, and reoperations.

Results

Thirteen studies, including eight prospective studies and five retrospective studies, met the criteria. A total of 946 patients were identified who reported at least 3 years of follow-up results. The artificial prostheses in these studies were ProDisc-L, Charité, AcroFlex, Maverick, and XL TDR. Patients with lumbar TDR demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores of 51.1 to 70.5% and of − 15.6 to − 44.4 for Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores at the last follow-up. Patient satisfaction rates were reported in eight studies and ranged from 75.5 to 93.3%. Complication rates were reported in 11 studies, ranging from 0 to 34.4%. The overall reoperation rate was 12.1% (119/986), ranging from 0 to 39.3%, with eight of the 13 studies reporting a reoperation rate of less than 10%.

Conclusions

This review shows that lumbar TDR effectively results in pain relief and an improvement in quality of life at mid- to long-term follow-up. Complication and reoperation rates were acceptable. However, this study did not provide sufficient evidence to show that lumbar TDR is superior to fusion surgery. To answer that question, a greater number of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed.

We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement

BACKGROUND

Replacement of a diseased lumbar intervertebral disc with an artificial device, a procedure known as lumbar total disc replacement (LTDR), has been practiced since the 1980s.

METHODS

Comprehensive review of published literature germane to LTDR, but comment is restricted to high-quality evidence reporting implantation of lumbar artificial discs that have been commercially available for at least 15 years at the time of writing and which continue to be commercially available.

RESULTS

LTDR is shown to be a noninferior (and sometimes superior) alternative to lumbar fusion in patients with discogenic low back pain and/or radicular pain attributable to lumbar disc degenerative disease (LDDD). Further, LTDR is a motion-preserving procedure, and evidence is emerging that it may also result in risk reduction for subsequent development and/or progression of adjacent segment disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of the substantial logistical challenges to the safe introduction of LTDR to a health care facility, the procedure continues to gain acceptance, albeit slowly.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients with LDDD who are considering an offer of spinal surgery can only provide valid and informed consent if they have been made aware of all reasonable surgical and nonsurgical options that may benefit them. Accordingly, and in those cases in which LTDR may have a role to play, patients under consideration for other forms of spinal surgery should be informed that this valid procedure exists.