Étude comparative des résultats cliniques à court terme de la prothèse discale lombaire et de l’arthrodèse lombaire antérieure

Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Lumbar fusion is considered to the gold standard for treatment of spinal degenerative diseases but results in adjacent segment degeneration and acquired spinal instability. Total disc replacement is a relatively new alternative avoiding the occurrence of the above complications. The systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate whether total disc replacement exhibited better outcomes and safety.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database(CNKI), Wangfang database, and VIP database were searched for RCTs comparing total disc replacement with lumbar fusion. All statistical analyses were carried out using the RevMan5.3 and STATA12.0 software.

RESULTS

Of 1116 citations identified by our search strategy, 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Compared to lumbar fusion, total disc replacement significantly improved ODI, VAS, SF-36, patient satisfaction, overall success, reoperation rate, ODI successful, reduced operation time, shortened duration of hospitalization, decreased postsurgical complications. However, total disc replacement did not show a significant difference regarding blood loss, consumption of analgesics, neurologic success and device success with lumbar fusion. And charges were significantly lower for total disc replacement compared with lumbar fusion in the 1-level patient group, while charges were similar in the 2-level group.

CONCLUSION

Total disc replacement is recommended to alleviate the pain of degenerative lumbar diseases, improve the state of lumbar function and the quality of life of patients, provide a high level of security, have better health economics benefits for 1-level patients.

Chronic low back pain: Relevance of a new classification based on the injury pattern

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to define the role for surgery in the treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) and to develop a new classification of cLBP based on the pattern of injury.

HYPOTHESIS

Surgery may benefit patients with cLBP, and a new classification based on the injury pattern may be of interest.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was performed by searching Medline, the Cochrane Library, the French public health database (Banque de Données en Santé Publique), Science Direct, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. The main search terms were "back pain" OR "lumbar" OR "intervertebral disc replacement" OR "vertebrae" OR "spinal" AND "surgery" OR "surgical" OR "fusion" OR "laminectomy" OR "discectomy".

RESULTS

Surgical techniques available for treating cLBP consist of fusion, disc replacement, dynamic stabilisation, and inter-spinous posterior devices. Compared to non-operative management including intensive rehabilitation therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy, fusion is not better in terms of either function (evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) or pain (level 2). Fusion is better than non-operative management without intensive rehabilitation therapy (level 2). There is no evidence to date that one fusion technique is superior over the others regarding the clinical outcomes (assessed using the ODI). Compared to fusion or multidisciplinary rehabilitation therapy, disc replacement can produce better function and less pain, although the differences are not clinically significant (level 2). The available evidence does not support the use of dynamic stabilisation or interspinous posterior devices to treat cLBP due to degenerative disease (professional consensus within the French Society for Spinal Surgery). The following recommendations can be made: non-operative treatment must be provided for at least 1 year before considering surgery in patients with cLBP due to degenerative disease; patients must be fully informed about alternative treatment options and the risks associated with surgery; standing radiographs must be obtained to assess sagittal spinal alignment and a magnetic resonance imaging scan to determine the mechanism of injury; and, if fusion is performed, the lumbar lordotic curvature must be restored.

DISCUSSION

This work establishes the need for a new classification of cLBP based on the presumptive mechanism responsible for the pain. Three categories should be distinguished: non-degenerative cLBP (previously known as symptomatic cLBP), in which the cause of pain is a trauma, spondylolysis, a tumour, an infection, or an inflammatory process; degenerative cLBP (previously known as non-specific cLBP) characterised by variable combinations of degenerative alterations in one or more discs, facet joints, and/or ligaments, with or without regional and/or global alterations in spinal alignment (which must be assessed using specific parameters); and cLBP of unknown mechanism, in which the pain seems to bear no relation to the anatomical abnormalities (and the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale may be helpful in this situation). This classification should prove useful in the future for constituting well-defined patient groups, thereby improving the assessment of treatment options.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, systematic review of level II studies.

Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lumbar disc replacement has been a surgical alternative to fusion surgery for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) for many years. Despite enthusiasm after the approval of the first devices, implantation rates have remained low, especially in the USA. The goal of this review is to provide a general overview of lumbar disc replacement in order to comprehend the successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a large amount of evidence-based data including satisfactory long-term results is available, implantation rates in the USA have not increased in the last decade. Possible explanations for this include strict indications for use, challenging surgical techniques, lack of device selection, fear of late complications or revision surgeries, and reimbursement issues. Recent publications can address some of the past concerns, but there still remain obstacles to widespread adoption. Upcoming data on long-term outcome, implant durability and possible very late complications will determine the future of lumbar disc replacement surgery.

Universal No-fault Compensation is Associated With Improved Return to Work Rates in Spine Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study and systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of "universal no-fault compensation" upon return-to-work rates in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, and then to make comparison with workers' compensation (WC) and non-workers' compensation (non-WC) claimants.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Compensation has an adverse influence upon outcomes and return to work in lumbar spinal fusion. It is unclear whether this is due to the compensation per se, or due to the features of WC including its adversarial environment, delayed resolution of claims, and need for disability enhancement to promote compensation. The New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is a universal no-fault system offering early treatment and salary reimbursement. Given the differing features of these compensation systems, comparison of return-to-work rates may give insight into the differing outcomes for the two compensation systems.

METHODS

From a cohort of 428 patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion, 178 patients covered by ACC system underwent a structured interview to determine pre-injury, pre-surgical, and post-surgical work status. A systematic literature review was performed relating to lumbar spine fusion, return to work, and WC.

RESULTS

The return-to-work rate for the ACC patients in work at the time of their injury was 81%. The systematic review of 21 studies including 2519 subjects revealed a return-to-work rate of 40% for WC patients, and 74% for non-WC patients (P < 0.001). There was a significantly greater return-to-work rate for ACC patients than WC patients (P < 0.001), but no difference between ACC and non-WC patients.

CONCLUSION

The return-to-work rates for a universal no-fault compensation system are higher than those under WC cover, and are compatible with non-WC cases. This suggests that the features of WC may contribute to the inferior return-to-work rates.

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

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of total disc replacement for chronic low back pain due to lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with fusion or other treatment options.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is an increasing use in disc replacement devices for degenerative disc disease, but their effectiveness compared with other interventions such as fusion of the motion segment or conservative treatment remains unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive search in PubMedCentral, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and FDA trials register was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing total disc replacement with any other intervention for degenerative disc disease were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Results and upper bounds of confidence intervals were compared with predefined clinically relevant differences.

RESULTS

We included 7 randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of 24 months. There is risk of bias in the included studies due to sponsoring and absence of any kind of blinding. One study compared disc replacement with rehabilitation and found a significant advantage in favor of surgery, which, however, did not reach the predefined threshold. Six studies compared disc replacement with fusion and found that the mean improvement in visual analogue scale score of back pain was 5.2 mm higher (2 studies; 95% confidence interval 0.2-10.3) with a low quality of evidence. The improvement of Oswestry disability index score at 24 months in the disc replacement group was 4.3 points more than in the fusion group (5 studies; 95% confidence interval 1.85-6.68) with a low quality of evidence. Both upper bounds of the confidence intervals were below the predefined clinically relevant difference.

CONCLUSION

Although statistically significant, the differences in clinical improvement were not beyond generally accepted boundaries for clinical relevance. Prevention of adjacent level disease and/or facet joint degeneration was not properly assessed. Therefore, because we think that harm and complications may occur after some years, the spine surgery community should be prudent to adopt this technology on a large scale, despite the fact that total disc replacement seems to be effective in treating low back pain in selected patients, and in the short term is at least equivalent to fusion surgery.

Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration

BACKGROUND

In the search for better surgical treatment of chronic low-back pain (LBP) in the presence of disc degeneration, total disc replacement has received increasing attention in recent years. A possible advantage of total disc replacement compared with fusion is maintained mobility at the operated level, which has been suggested to reduce the chance of adjacent segment degeneration.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of total disc replacement for chronic low-back pain in the presence of lumbar disc degeneration compared with other treatment options in terms of patient-centred improvement, motion preservation and adjacent segment degeneration.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search in Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, ISI, and the FDA register was conducted. We also checked the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing total disc replacement with any other intervention for degenerative disc disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias per study using the criteria of the CBRG. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach. Two review authors independently selected studies and assessed risk of bias of the studies. Results and upper bounds of confidence intervals were compared against predefined clinically relevant differences.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 publications, describing seven unique RCT's. The follow-up of the studies was 24 months, with only one extended to five years. Five studies had a low risk of bias, although there is a risk of bias in the included studies due to sponsoring and absence of any kind of blinding. One study compared disc replacement against rehabilitation and found a statistically significant advantage in favour of surgery, which, however, did not reach the predefined threshold for clinical relevance. Six studies compared disc replacement against fusion and found that the mean improvement in VAS back pain was 5.2 mm (of 100 mm) higher (two studies, 676 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 10.26) with a low quality of evidence while from the same studies leg pain showed no difference. The improvement of Oswestry score at 24 months in the disc replacement group was 4.27 points more than in the fusion group (five studies; 1207 patients; 95% CI 1.85 to 6.68) with a low quality of evidence. Both upper bounds of the confidence intervals for VAS back pain and Oswestry score were below the predefined clinically relevant difference. Choice of control group (circumferential or anterior fusion) did not appear to result in different outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although statistically significant, the differences between disc replacement and conventional fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease were not beyond the generally accepted clinical important differences with respect to short-term pain relief, disability and Quality of Life. Moreover, these analyses only represent a highly selected population. The primary goal of prevention of adjacent level disease and facet joint degeneration by using total disc replacement, as noted by the manufacturers and distributors, was not properly assessed and not a research question at all. Unfortunately, evidence from observational studies could not be used because of the high risk of bias, while these could have improved external validity assessment of complications in less selected patient groups. Non-randomised studies should however be very clear about patient selection and should incorporate independent, blinded outcome assessment, which was not the case in the excluded studies. Therefore, because we believe that harm and complications may occur after years, we believe that the spine surgery community should be prudent about adopting this technology on a large scale, despite the fact that total disc replacement seems to be effective in treating low-back pain in selected patients, and in the short term is at least equivalent to fusion surgery.