Reoperations and Complications of Failed Lumbar Total Disk Replacement

Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Device Removals and Revisions Performed During a 20-Year Experience with 2141 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study with prospective patient contact attempted to collect current data.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose was to investigate the incidence and reasons for lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) removal or revision.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A concern regarding lumbar TDR was safety, particularly the need for device removal or revision. This may be particularly important considering removal/revision requires repeat anterior exposure with an increased risk of vascular injury.

METHODS

Data were collected for a series of 2141 lumbar TDR patients, beginning with the first case experience in 2000. The mean follow-up was 78.6 months. For each case of device removal/revision, the reason, duration from index surgery, and procedure performed were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 2141 patients, 27 (1.26%) underwent TDR removal or revision. Device removal was performed in 24 patients (1.12%), while three patients underwent revision (0.14%). Of the 24 removals, 12 were due to migration and/or loosening, three developed problems post-trauma, two developed lymphocytic reaction to device materials, two had ongoing pain, and there was one case of each: TDR was too large, vertebral body fracture (osteoporosis), lytic lesion, device subsidence and facet arthrosis, and infection seeded from a chest infection 146 months post-TDR. The three revisions were for Core repositioning (technique error), device repositioning after displacement, and core replacement due to wear/failure. With respect to timing, 37.0% of removals/revisions occurred within one-month postimplantation. Of note, 40.7% of removals/revisions occurred in the first 25 TDR cases performed by individual surgeons. There was one significant vascular complication occurring in a patient whose TDR was removed due to trauma. This was also the only patient among 258 with ≥15-year follow-up who underwent removal/revision.

CONCLUSION

In this large consecutive series, 1.26% of TDRs were removed/revised. The low rate over a 20 year period supports the safety of these devices.

Lumbar Total Disc Replacement by the Lateral Approach-Up to 10 Years Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze radiologic and clinical results with a minimum 5 years follow-up (FUP) of lateral lumbar total disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, clinical, and radiologic study. Patients were treated with lumbar total disc replacement (extreme lateral total disc replacement) by a lateral transpsoas approach. From 2005 to 2012, 60 patients were enrolled (31 male, 29 female; total, 66 levels; average age, 42.8 years [standard deviation (SD), 9.7 years, range, 22-64 years]; mean body mass index, 26.0 [SD, 3.4]). Clinical end points included visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index questionnaires, complications, and reoperation. Radiographic end points included heterotopic ossification (McAfee classification), adjacent level disease, and prosthesis migration or subluxation.

RESULTS

The mean surgical duration was 122 minutes (SD, 45 minutes) with mean 58 mL (SD, 21 mL) of estimated blood loss. No intraoperative complication occurred. The exceptions were 1 patient with postanesthesia apnea and 2 patients with quadriceps motor deficit (resolved within 4 months with physiotherapy). Of 60 patients, 9 were missed to FUP and 51 (85%) were enrolled in the study, with mean FUP of 92 months (range, 60-122 months). In total, 5 levels (9%; 5 of 55) required to be fused. Both removal of the prostheses and interbody fusion were performed by the lateral transpsoas approach. One patient experienced CrCo allergy (at 2 months); 4 experienced persistent pain from different causes (at 7, 9, 24, and 88 months). Five patients (10%) presented with progression at adjacent levels and 2 (4%) required surgery. One patient required sacroiliac fusion at 63 months. There were no complications during the retrieval surgeries. One partial disc migration occurred but the patient refused retrieval. There was no bone bridging in 9% of the discs (grade 0 heterotopic ossification): grade I, 22%; grade II, 31%; grade III, 20%; grade IV (fusion), 18%. Most heterotopic ossification cases (93%) occurred in the lateral aspect of the disc space, and mostly at the contralateral side of the surgical approach. Patient-reported outcomes significantly improved (P < 0.01) at the last FUP. Visual analog scale back pain score was preoperatively 8.5, early postoperatively 2.5, and at last FUP 3.1. Oswestry Disability Index was preoperatively 55%, early postoperatively 31%, and at last FUP 21%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents mid-term to long-term results of extreme lateral total disc replacement artificial disc for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease, with fast mobilization, sustained pain relief, and improved physical function. Despite the low rate of ALDis, some discs evolved to ankyloses and others were retrieved. Lumbar artificial disc replacement by the lateral approach seems to be a safe and effective treatment.

Transforaminal endoscopic decompression of a postoperative dislocated bone fragment after a 2-level lumbar total disc replacement: case report

The proposed advantages of total disc replacement (TDR) over fusion in the lumbar spine are the preservation of motion and the avoidance of adjacent-level disease. One of the complications inherent in TDR is the possibility of vertebral body fracture due to trauma or a malpositioned implant. The resulting dilemma is that posterior decompression of the displaced bone fragment could then have a destabilizing effect and possibly require fusion, thus obviating the benefit of an arthroplasty procedure. In this study, the authors describe the technical considerations and feasibility of the treatment of a postoperative L-5 paresis that resulted from a dislocated bone fragment at L4–5 during a 2-level lumbar TDR.