Five-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-level Degenerative Disc Disease

Prosthesis optimization and mechanical analysis of artificial lumbar disc replacement

BACKGROUND

Artificial lumbar disc replacement is an effective method for the treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. An appropriate artificial intervertebral disc device is of great significance for the maintenance of spinal stability and activity.

METHODS

Two finite element models of ProDisc-L prosthesis replacement and improved prosthesis replacement were constructed by using the finite element model of complete lumbar L1-L5 segment established by CT image data. The mechanical properties of the surgical models before and after improvement were analyzed and evaluated.

RESULTS

The ProDisc-L group and the improved group showed similar lumbar's ROM and maintained a similar ROM with the normal lumbar spine. There was no significant change in the intervertebral disc's pressure between the adjacent segments of the two prosthesis groups compared with the normal group, but the stress value of the improved prosthesis group was slightly lower than that of the ProDisc-L group. In addition, the improved prosthesis replacement has more reasonable stress distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the ProDisc-L prosthesis, the improved prosthesis can reduce the pressure in the intervertebral disc of the adjacent segment, the contact stress of the facet joint and the artificial prosthesis, which provides reference for the subsequent design of the prosthesis structure.

Lumbar Total Disc Replacements for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review of Outcomes With a Minimum of 5 years Follow-Up

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the clinical outcomes, re-operation, and complication rates of lumbar TDR devices at mid-to long-term follow-up studies for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar to identify follow-up studies that evaluated clinical outcomes of lumbar TDR in patients with DDD. The included studies met the following criteria: prospective or retrospective studies published from 2012 to 2022; a minimum of 5 years post-operative follow-up; a study sample size >10 patients; patients >18 years of age; containing clinical outcomes with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), complication or reoperation rates.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included with data on 2284 patients. The mean follow-up time was 8.30 years, with a mean follow-up rate of 86.91%. The study population was 54.97% female, with a mean age of 42.34 years. The mean VAS and ODI pain score improvements were 50.71 ± 6.91 and 30.39 ± 5.32 respectively. The mean clinical success and patient satisfaction rates were 74.79% ± 7.55% and 86.34% ± 5.64%, respectively. The mean complication and reoperation rates were 18.53% ± 6.33% and 13.6% ± 3.83%, respectively. There was no significant difference when comparing mid-term and long-term follow-up studies for all clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant improvements in pain reduction at last follow-up in patients with TDRs. Mid-term follow-up data on clinical outcomes, complication and reoperation rates of lumbar TDRs were maintained longer term.

The fragility index and reverse fragility index of FDA investigational device exemption trials in spinal fusion surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) studies are considered a gold standard of assessing safety and efficacy of novel devices through RCTs. The fragility index (FI) has emerged as a means to assess robustness of statistically significant study results and inversely, the reverse fragility index (RFI) for non-significant differences. Previous authors have defined results as fragile if loss to follow up is greater than the FI or RFI. The aim of this study was to assess the FI, RFI, and robustness of data supplied by IDE studies in spinal surgery.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of the literature. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcome measures conducted under IDE guidelines between 2000 and 2023. FI and RFI were calculated through successively changing events to non-events until the outcome changed to non-significance or significance, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) were calculated by dividing the FI and RFI, respectively, by the sample size.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 40 unique outcome measures; 240 outcomes were analyzed. Twenty-six studies reported 96 statistically significant results. The median FI was 6 (IQR: 3-9.25), and patients lost to follow up was greater than the FI in 99.0% (95/96) of results. The average FQ was 0.027. Thirty studies reported 144 statistically insignificant results and a median RFI of 6 (IQR: 4-8). The average RFQ extrapolated was 0.021, and loss to follow up was greater than the RFI in 98.6% (142/144) of results.

CONCLUSIONS

IDE studies in spine surgery are surprisingly fragile given their reputations, large sample sizes, and intent to establish safety in investigational devices. This study found a median FI and RFI of 6. The number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than FIand RFI in 98.8% (237/240) of reported outcomes. FQ and RFQ tell us that changes of two to three patients per hundred can flip the significance of reported outcomes. This is an important reminder of the limitations of RCTs. Analysis of fragility in future studies may help clarify the strength of the relationship between reported data and their conclusions.

In Vitro Wear of a Novel Vitamin E Crosslinked Polyethylene Lumbar Total Joint Replacement

BACKGROUND

A novel, lumbar total joint replacement (TJR) design has been developed to treat degeneration across all three columns of the lumbar spine (anterior, middle, and posterior columns). Thus far, there has been no in vitro studies that establish the preclinical safety profile of the vitamin E-stabilized highly crosslinked polyethylene (VE-HXLPE) lumbar TJR relative to historical lumbar anterior disc replacement for the known risks of wear and impingement faced by all motion preserving designs for the lumbar spine.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSE

In this study we asked, (1) what is the wear performance of the VE-HXLPE lumbar TJR under ideal, clean conditions? (2) Is the wear performance of VE-HXLPE in lumbar TJR sensitive to more aggressive, abrasive conditions? (3) How does the VE-HXLPE lumbar TJR perform under impingement conditions?

METHOD

A lumbar TJR with bilateral VE-HXLPE superior bearings and CoCr inferior bearings was evaluated under clean, impingement, and abrasive conditions. Clean and abrasive testing were guided by ISO 18192-1 and impingement was assessed as per ASTM F3295. For abrasive testing, CoCr components were scratched to simulate in vivo abrasion. The devices were tested for 10 million cycles (MC) under clean conditions, 5 MC under abrasion, and 1 MC under impingement.

RESULT

Wear rates under clean and abrasive conditions were 1.2 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.6 mg/MC, respectively. The VE-HXLPE components demonstrated evidence of burnishing and multidirectional microscratching consistent with microabrasive conditions with the cobalt chromium spherical counterfaces. Under impingement, the wear rates ranged between 1.7 ± 1.1 (smallest size) and 3.9 ± 1.1 mg/MC (largest size). No functional or mechanical failure was observed across any of the wear modes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found that that a VE-HXLPE-on-CoCr lumbar total joint replacement design met or exceeded the benchmarks established by traditional anterior disc replacements, with wear rates previously reported in the literature ranging between 1 and 15 mg/MC.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The potential clinical benefits of this novel TJR design, which avoids long-term facet complications through facet removal with a posterior approach, were found to be balanced by the in vitro tribological performance of the VE-HXLPE bearings. Our encouraging in vitro findings have supported initiating an FDA-regulated clinical trial for the design which is currently under way.

Outcomes of patients undergoing single-level arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Compared to vertebral body fusion, artificial discs are thought to lessen the risks of adjacent segment disease and the need for additional surgery by maintaining spinal mobility as they mimic the intervertebral disc structure. No studies have compared the rates of postoperative complications and the requirement for secondary surgery at adjacent segments among patients who have undergone anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIF) versus those undergoing lumbar arthroplasty.

METHODS

An all-payer claims database identified 11,367 individuals who underwent single-level ALIF and lumbar arthroplasty for degenerative disc disease (DDD) between January 2010 and October 2020. Rates of complications following surgery, the need for additional lumbar surgeries, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative opioid utilization were assessed in matched cohorts based on logistic regression models. Kaplan-Meyer plots were created to model the probability of additional surgery.

RESULTS

Following 1:1 exact matching, 846 records of patients who had undergone ALIF or lumbar arthroplasty were analyzed. All-cause readmission within 30-30 days following surgery was significantly higher in patients undergoing ALIF versus arthroplasty (2.6% vs. 0.71%, p = 0.02). LOS was significantly lower among the patients who had undergone ALIF (1.043 ± 0.21 vs. 2.17 ± 1.7, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF and lumbar arthroplasty procedures are equally safe and effective in treating DDD. Our findings do not support that single-level fusions may biomechanically necessitate revisional surgeries.

Preservation of Motion in Spine Surgery

The number of spinal procedures and spinal fusions continues to grow. Although fusion procedures have a high success rate, they have inherent risks such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment disease. New innovations in spine techniques have sought to eliminate these complications by preserving motion in the spinal column. Several techniques and devices have been developed in the cervical and lumbar spine including cervical laminoplasty, cervical disk ADA, posterior lumbar motion preservation devices, and lumbar disk ADA. In this review, advantages and disadvantages of each technique will be discussed.

The role of spinal surgery in the treatment of low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is common and a leading cause of disability and lost productivity worldwide. Acute LBP is frequently self-resolving, but recurrence is common, and a significant proportion of patients will develop chronic pain. This transition is perpetuated by anatomical, biological, psychological and social factors. Chronic LBP should be managed with a holistic biopsychosocial approach of generally non-surgical measures. Spinal surgery has a role in alleviating radicular pain and disability resulting from neural compression, or where back pain relates to cancer, infection, or gross instability. Spinal surgery for all other forms of back pain is unsupported by clinical data, and the broader evidence base for spinal surgery in the management of LBP is poor and suggests it is ineffective. Emerging areas of interest include selection of a minority of patients who may benefit from surgery based on spinal sagittal alignment and/or nuclear medicine scans, but an evidence base is absent. Spinal surgery for back pain has increased substantially over recent decades, and disproportionately among privately insured patients, thus the contribution of industry and third-party payers to this increase, and their involvement in published research, requires careful consideration.

Prospective, randomized controlled multicenter study of posterior lumbar facet arthroplasty for the treatment of spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a posterior facet replacement device, the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, for the treatment of one-level symptomatic lumbar stenosis with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Posterior lumbar arthroplasty with facet replacement is a motion-preserving alternative to lumbar decompression and fusion. The authors report the preliminary results from the TOPS FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) trial.

METHODS

The study was a prospective, randomized controlled FDA IDE trial comparing the investigational TOPS device with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months. Validated patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. The primary outcome was a composite measure of clinical success: 1) no reoperations, 2) no device breakage, 3) ODI reduction of ≥ 15 points, and 4) no new or worsening neurological deficit. Patients were considered a clinical success only if they met all four measures. Radiographic assessments were made by an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients were evaluated (n = 170 in the TOPS group and n = 79 in the TLIF group). There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4-5: TOPS, 95% and TLIF, 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group (85%) compared with the TLIF group (64%) (p = 0.0138). The percentage of patients reporting a minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.037) favoring TOPS (93%) over TLIF (81%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients reporting a minimum 20-point improvement on VAS back pain (TOPS, 87%; TLIF, 64%) and leg pain (TOPS, 90%; TLIF, 88%) scores. The rate of surgical reintervention for facet replacement in the TOPS group (5.9%) was lower than the TLIF group (8.8%). The TOPS cohort demonstrated maintenance of flexion/extension range of motion from preoperatively (3.85°) to 24 months (3.86°).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

Predictors of long-term clinical outcomes in adult patients after lumbar total disc replacement: development and validation of a prediction model

OBJECTIVE

Long-term outcomes of single-level lumbar arthroplasty are understood to be very good, with the most recent Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial showing a < 5% reoperation rate at the close of the 7-year study. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine whether specific patients from the activL IDE data set had better outcomes than the mean good outcome of the IDE trial, as well as to identify contributing factors that could be optimized in real-world use.

METHODS

Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were developed using the randomized patient set (n = 283) from the activL trial and used to identify predictive factors and to derive risk equations. The models were internally validated using the randomized patient set and externally validated using the nonrandomized patient set (n = 52) from the activL trial. Predictive power was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

Two factors were significantly associated with achievement of better than the mean outcomes at 7 years. Randomization to receive the activL device was positively associated with better than the mean visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, whereas preoperative narcotics use was negatively associated with better than the mean ODI score. Preoperative narcotics use was also negatively associated with return to unrestricted full-time work. Other preoperative factors associated with positive outcomes included unrestricted full-time work, working manual labor after index back injury, and decreasing disc height. Older age, greater VAS-leg pain score, greater ODI score, female sex, and working manual labor before back injury were identified as preoperative factors associated with negative outcomes. Preoperative BMI, VAS-back pain score, back pain duration ≥ 1 year, SF-36 physical component summary score, and recreational activity had no effect on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar total disc replacement for symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease is a well-established option for improving long-term patient outcomes. Discontinuing narcotics use may further improve patient outcomes, as this analysis identified associations between no preoperative narcotics use and better ODI score relative to the mean score of the activL trial at 7 years and increased likelihood of return to work within 7 years. Other preoperative factors that may further improve outcomes included unrestricted full-time work, working manual labor despite back injury, sedentary work status before back injury, and randomization to receive the activL device. Tailoring patient care before total disc replacement may further improve patient outcomes.

Assessment of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Smartphone-based 6-minute Walking Test After Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the 6-minute walking test (6WT) after surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The smartphone-based 6WT is a valid and reliable tool to quantify objective functional impairment in patients with lumbar DDD. To date, the MCID of the 6WT has not been described in patients with DDD.

METHODS

We assessed patients pre- and 6-weeks postoperatively, analyzing both raw 6-minute walking distances (6WD; in meters) and standardized 6WT z scores. Three methods were applied to compute MCID values using established patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) as anchors (VAS back/leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire [ZCQ], Core Outcome Measures Index [COMI]): average change, minimum detectable change, and the change difference approach.

RESULT

We studied 49 patients (59% male) with a mean age of 55.5 ± 15.8 years. The computation methods revealed MCID values ranging from 81 m (z score of 0.9) based on the VAS back pain to 99 m (z score of 1.0) based on the ZCQ physical function scale. The average MCID of the 6WT was 92 m (z score of 1.0). Based on the average MCID of raw 6WD values or standardized z scores, 53% or 49% of patients classified as 6-week responders to surgery for lumbar DDD, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MCID for the 6WT in lumbar DDD patients is variable, depending on the calculation technique. We propose a MCID of 92m (z score of 1.0), based on the average of all three methods. Using a z score as MCID allows for the standardization of clinically meaningful change and attenuates age- and sex-related differences.Level of Evidence: 3.

Final Long-Term Reporting from a Randomized Controlled IDE Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: 7-Year Results

BACKGROUND

This study compared 7-year safety and efficacy outcomes of activL and ProDisc-L lumbar total disc replacements in patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The objectives are to report 7-year outcomes of the trial, evaluate the outcomes for patients lost to follow-up, and determine whether early outcomes predict long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption study. Eligible patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar DDD had failed ≥6 months of nonsurgical management. Patients (N = 283) were randomized to receive activL (n = 218) or ProDisc-L (n = 65). At 7 years, data were available from 206 patients (activL, 160; ProDisc-L, 46). Logistic regression models were fit to predict 7-year outcomes for patients lost to follow-up after 2 years.

RESULTS

At 7 years, the activL group was noninferior to the ProDisc-L group on the primary composite endpoint (P = .0369). Both groups showed significant reductions in back/leg pain severity and improvements in disability index and quality-of-life relative to baseline (P < .0001). In both groups, opioid use was significantly reduced at 7 years (0%) relative to baseline (P < .01), and the overall reoperation rates were low (4.6%). activL patients showed a significantly better range of motion (ROM) for flexion-extension rotation than ProDisc-L patients (P = .0334). A significantly higher proportion of activL patients did not report serious adverse events (activL, 62%; ProDisc-L, 43%; P = .011). Predictive modeling indicated that >70% of patients (depending on outcome) lost to follow-up after 2 years would show clinically significant improvement at 7 years if improvements were achieved at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of activL and ProDisc-L are maintained after 7 years, with significant improvements from baseline observed in pain, function, and opioid use. activL is more effective at preserving ROM than ProDisc-L and has a more favorable safety profile. Improvements in other primary and secondary outcomes were similar between both disc designs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Risk factors for reoperation after lumbar total disc replacement at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The reoperation rate following TDR (Total Disc replacement) has been established at short- and mid-term time points through the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption (FDA IDE) trials. However, these trials include highly selected centers and surgeons with strict governance of indications. The utilization of TDR throughout the community needs further analysis.

PURPOSE

To identify the risk factors for lumbar spine reoperation in patients undergoing lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This study is a multi-center retrospective cohort study utilizing the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We identified 1,368 patients who underwent an elective primary lumbar TDR in New York State between January 1, 2005 and September 30, 2013.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary functional outcome of interest was lumbar reoperation, specifically the evaluation of independent risk factors for lumbar reoperation at a minimum of 2 years, with sub-analyses performed at 5 and ten years.

METHODS

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth revision codes were utilized to identify patients undergoing a primary lumbar TDR. We excluded patients with primary/revision lumbar fusion procedures and revision disc replacement procedures. Hospital academic status was determined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Unique encrypted patient identifiers allowed for longitudinal follow-up for reoperation. Logistic regression models compared reoperation and no-reoperation cohorts, and were performed on sub-analyses for significant univariate predictors of reoperation.

RESULTS

Between January 2005 and September 2013, 1368 patients underwent a primary lumbar TDR. Reoperation occurred in 8.8% by 2 years, 15.8% by 5 years, and 19.5% by ten years. Diabetics were more likely to have reoperations (7.5% vs 3.8%, p=.013). Teaching hospitals experienced a decreased reoperation rate compared to nonteaching hospitals at 2-year (5.0% vs 10.5%, p=.002), 5-year (10.7% vs 17.9%, p=.002) and 10-year (11.7% vs 21.9%, p=.045) follow-up. Lumbar fusion was the most common reoperation (14.2%).

CONCLUSION

We identified an 8.8% reoperation rate after inpatient lumbar TDR at 2-years, 15.8% at 5-years, and 19.5% at 10-years. When stratifying by teaching status, reoperation rates at teaching centers align with those reported in FDA IDE studies. Diabetes was the only patient factor influencing reoperation rate. There is a growing consensus that lumbar TDR is a durable and appropriate surgical option for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Proper indications are crucial to obtaining good outcomes with lumbar TDR.

Revision Surgery of Total Lumbar Disk Replacement: Review of 48 Cases

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective clinical review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze failure mechanisms after total lumbar disk replacement (TDR) and surgical revision strategies in patients with recurrent low back pain (LBP).

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA

Several reports indicate that TDR revision surgery carries a major risk and that it should not be recommended. The clinical results of posterior instrumented fusion using the prosthesis like an interbody cage have not been well analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2003 to 2018, 48 patients with recurrent LBP after TDR underwent revision surgery. The average age was 39 years (24-61 y). The mean follow-up was 100.4 months (24.6-207.7 mo). Clinical data, self-assessment of patient satisfaction, and Oswestry Disability Index collected at each clinical control or by phone call for the older files and radiologic assessments were reviewed. The surgical revision strategy included posterior fusion in 41 patients (group A) and TDR removal and anterior fusion in 7 patients (group B), of which 6 patients had an additional posterior fixation.

RESULTS

Facet joint osteoarthritis was associated with TDR failure in 85%. In 68% the position of the prosthesis was suboptimal. Range of motion was preserved in 25%, limited in extension in 65%, and limited in flexion in 40%. Limited range of motion and facet joint osteoarthritis were significantly related (P=0.0008). The complication rate in group B was 43% including iliac vein laceration. Preoperative and 2-year follow-up Oswestry Disability Index were 25.5 and 22.0, respectively, in group A versus 27.9 and 21.3 in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior osteoarthritis was the principal cause of recurrent LBP in failed TDR. The anterior approach for revision carried a major vascular risk, whereas a simple posterior instrumented fusion leads to the same clinical results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Clinical-Instrumental Results and Analysis of Functional Activity Restoration in Professional Athletes After Lumbar Total Disk Replacement

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the clinical and biomechanical outcome of professional athletes after lumbar total disk replacement, with a focus on restoration of the functional activity.

METHODS

This nonrandomized retrospective single-center study included 11 professional athletes who underwent lumbar disc replacement surgery using the prosthesis M6-L (Spinal Kinetics, Schaffhausen, Switzerland). The average postoperative follow-up was 3.18 ± 1.14 years. The following outcomes were evaluated: intensity of pain in the lumbar spine and lower limbs, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36, complications, time of return to previous sports activity, range of movement, degree of lumbar lordosis, degenerative changes of the adjacent levels, and degree of heterotopic ossification.

RESULTS

The operated patients reported significant decrease of pain on visual analog scale (P < 0.001) as well as significant improvement of Oswestry Disability Index (P = 0.001) and Short-Form 36 (P < 0.001). For the duration of follow-up, the patients maintained segmental range of motion at L4-L5 (P = 0.04) and L5-S1 (P = 0.03) levels. There was also some statistically insignificant increase of global lumbar lordosis (P = 0.84). We did not identify any significant degeneration of the adjacent intervertebral disks (P > 0.05) or progression of the facet joint degenerative changes at the implantation level and in the adjacent segments (P > 0.05). One patient (9.1%) developed grade I heterotopic ossification 5 years after surgery and in 1 patient (9.1%), a lesion of superior hypogastric plexus was recorded. The average time of return to previous sports activity was 9.72 ± 3.03 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Total lumbar disc replacement using M6-L prosthesis in professional athletes made it possible to achieve statistically significant reduction of pain and facilitated early return to normal sports activities. In our opinion, preservation of movement of the operated lumbar segment can help to reduce the mechanical stress with beneficial impact on the rate of degeneration of the adjacent level.

Factors of Adjacent Segment Disease Onset After Microsurgical Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have examined the underlying cause of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. The goal of this study is to investigate factors related to the onset of ASD after decompression surgery based on the imaging results.

METHODS

We examined 95 patients who underwent single-level decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (L3/4, L4/5) and follow-up for 5 or more years. Radiographic images were performed preoperatively and at each year of follow-up. We then examined image parameters by focusing on the level operated on and adjacent segments in relation to the postoperative onset of symptomatic ASD.

RESULTS

During the mean observation period of 7.5 years, 39 of 95 patients developed symptomatic ASD. Patients with a high preoperative sagittal rotation angle in adjacent segments possibly developed postoperative ASD (P = 0.0006). Furthermore, postoperative ASD tended to be unlikely in patients who exhibited postoperative slip progression at the operated level (P = 0.025). Based on receiver operating characteristic analysis, ASD developed with a probability of 91.3% in patients with a preoperative sagittal rotation angle of ≥7.5° in adjacent segments when there was no postoperative slip progression at the operated level. However, ASD developed in only 16.7% of patients with a preoperative adjacent segment sagittal rotation angle of 7.5° or less when there was postoperative slip progression at the operated level.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical changes at the operated level and adjacent segments contribute to the onset of ASD after lumbar decompression. Preoperative high sagittal rotation angle of adjacent segments and negative postoperative slip progression at the operated level are risk factors of ASD.

Lumbar Arthroplasty: Past, Present, and Future

Lumbar degenerative disc disease is a pathologic process that affects a large portion of our aging population. In the recent past, surgical treatment has involved fusion procedures. However, lumbar disc arthroplasty and replacement provides an alternative for carefully selected patients. It provides the major advantage of motion preservation and thus keeps adjacent segments from significantly progressive degeneration. The history of lumbar disc replacement has roots that start in the 1960s with the implantation of stainless-steel balls. Decades later, multiple implants with different material design and biomechanical properties were introduced to the market. New third-generation implants have made great strides in improved biomechanics and clinical outcomes. Although there is room for further advancement and studies are warranted to assess the long-term durability and sustainability of lumbar disc arthroplasty, it has certainly proven to be a very acceptable alternative within the surgical armamentarium that should be offered to patients who meet indications. In this review we present an overview of lumbar disc arthroplasty including its history, indications, biomechanics, challenges, and future directions.