Current trends in spinal arthroplasty: an assessment of surgeon practices and attitudes regarding cervical and lumbar disk replacement

Surgical Trends in Use of Lumbar Disk Arthroplasty Versus Lumbar Fusion From 2010 to 2021

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar disk arthroplasty (LDA) is a relatively novel procedure with limited indications and use in the United States, especially relative to lumbar fusion (LF). This study aimed to determine surgical trends between LDA versus LF over the past 10 years to quantify absolute/relative surgical volume over time and compare baseline patient demographics, readmission, 2-year revision rates, and costs-of-care.

METHODS

A total of 714,268 patients were identified from a nationwide database who underwent LF (n = 710,527) or LDA (n = 3,741) from 2010 to 2021. The percentage of patients managed by each surgical procedure was calculated overall and subdivided annually. Baseline demographics were compared between surgical groups, comparing postoperative readmission rates and 2-year revision rates. Linear regression modeling was done to evaluate trends/differences in procedural volume by year.

RESULTS

Beginning in 2010 to 2011, LDA constituted 1.0% of procedures, before the number/proportion of LDA procedures to LF has slowly dropped (1% in 2010 to 0.6% in 2021, P > 0.05). Patients undergoing LDA were younger (42.7 vs. 60.9 years, P < 0.0001) with a higher male proportion (50.9 vs. 42.8, P < 0.0001) and a lower Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (2.5 vs. 4.6, P < 0.0001). Patients undergoing LDA had lower rates of readmission (3.8 vs. 7.6%, P < 0.0001). Both LDA and LF average same-day reimbursements elevated sharply from 2010 to 2015 before decreasing to values lower than initially at 2010, with LF demonstrating a greater reduction in costs ($10,600 vs. $2,600, P < 0.05), although LDA remains cheaper ($2,900 vs. $5,300, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The surgical volume of LDA has remained steady while dropping in proportion relative to LF over the past decade. Although patients undergoing LDA are younger and have both fewer baseline demographic comorbidities and lower readmission rates, surgeons remain hesitant to perform this procedure over LF.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study, Level III Evidence.

Disc herniation caused by a viscoelastic nucleus after total lumbar disc replacement-a case report

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is highly prevalent. If conservative treatment fails, spinal fusion procedures are commonly performed. Total disc replacement (TDR) might be a surgical option for a distinct subset of patients with DDD. Several prostheses have been or are still available. Despite some promising initial clinical results, there is still limited experience with hardware-related adverse events. This report highlights an unreported complication after TDR with a viscoelastic device. Literature about long-term outcome and safety of this particular TDR is scarce. Hence, there exists limited experience with TDR-related complications with such a failure mode. We report a 34-year-old male presented to us with an acute S1 radiculopathy on the right. His past medical history was significant for prior TDR at the level L5/S1 at another hospital 2 years prior to this acute episode. Imaging studies revealed an intraspinal mass compromising the right S1 nerve root. This mass mimicked a disc herniation and sequestrectomy was performed. Intraoperatively, the prolapsed sequester turned out to be part of the viscoelastic nucleus of the disc prosthesis. Interbody fusion combined with posterior instrumentation was ultimately performed. The patient did well afterwards, but is currently (2 years later) developing adjacent segment disease with facet syndromes. Since TDR might be beneficial for certain patients, spine surgeons should be aware of potential device-related complications.

National Trends for Primary and Revision Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty Throughout the United States

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

OBJECTIVES

Analysis of economic and demographic data concerning lumbar disc arthroplasty (LDA) throughout the United States to improve value-based care and health care utilization.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample database was queried for patients who underwent primary or revision LDA between 2005 and 2013. Demographic and economic data included total surgeries, costs, length of stay, and frequency of routine discharge. The National Inpatient Sample database represents a 20% sample of discharges from US hospitals weighted to provide national estimates.

RESULTS

Primary LDA decreased 86% from 3059 to 420 from 2005 to 2013. The mean total cost of LDA increased 33% from $17 747 to $23 804. The mean length of stay decreased from 2.8 to 2.4 days. The mean routine discharge (home discharge without visiting nursing care) remained constant at 91%. Revision procedures (removal, supplemental fixation, or reoperation at the treated level) declined 30% from 194 to 135 cases over the study period. The mean revision burden, defined as the ratio of revision procedures to the sum of primary and revision procedures, was 12% (range 6% to 24%). The mean total cost of revisions ranged from $12 752 to $22 282.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2005 to 2013, primary LDA significantly declined in the United States by 86% despite several studies pointing to improved efficacy and cost-efficiency. This disparity may be related to a lack of surgeon reimbursement from insurance companies. Congruently, the number of revision LDA cases has declined 30%, while revision burden has risen from 6% to 24%.

Failure to Launch: What the Rejection of Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Tells us About American Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Spine surgeon survey.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the failure of widespread adoption of lumbar total disk replacement (L-TDR) in the United States.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

L-TDR has been available for use in the United States since 2005. L-TDR has not gained wide acceptance as a treatment for degenerative disk disease despite substantial investments in product development and positive results in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Estimates of the number of L-TDR procedures performed in the United States from 2005 to 2010 were calculated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Insurance policies were assessed for L-TDR coverage through Internet search. Finally, an 18-question survey regarding surgeons' opinions toward L-TDR was distributed to the members of North American Spine Society.

RESULTS

The estimated number of primary L-TDR procedures performed in the United States decreased from 3650 in 2005 to 1863 in 2010, whereas revision L-TDR procedures increased from 420 to 499. Of 14 major insurers, 11 (78.6%) do not cover L-TDR. In total, 613 spine surgeons responded to the survey. Over half of respondents (51.1%, 313/612) have performed L-TDR, although only 44.6% (136/305) of initial adopters currently perform the surgery. However, 81.5% (106/130) of those currently performing L-TDR have been satisfied with the results. When asked about their perceptions of L-TDR, 65.0% (367/565) indicated a lack of insurance coverage for L-TDR in their region, 54.9% (310/565) worry about long-term complications, and 52.7% (298/565) worry about the technical challenges of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite early enthusiasm for L-TDR, wide adoption has not occurred. A primary reason for this failure seems to be a lack of insurance coverage, despite intermediate-term clinical success. In addition, surgeons continue to express concerns regarding long-term outcomes and the technical difficulties of revision. This case study of a failed surgical innovation may signal increasing involvement of payers in clinical decision-making and may be instructive to surgeons, policymakers, and manufacturers.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Using ProDisc-II: Average 10-Year Follow-Up at a Single Institute

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and to investigate who achieved the successful outcomes after lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) using ProDisc II.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There are few evidences regarding the long-term efficacy and safety of TDR. Furthermore, it has not been addressed which patients achieved good outcomes in long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Data at 1-, 2-, 5-, 7-year, and last follow-up were used for the analysis. According to the presence of combined pathologies, patients were categorized as groups A and B (presumed good and bad candidates, respectively). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, clinical success rate, and subjective satisfaction (four-point scale). Radiographic results included segmental range of motion.

RESULTS

Total study population was 54 patients with 69 segments with the average follow-up duration of 120.0 months. There were 39 patients in group A and 15 in group B. Visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores were improved significantly at all follow-up periods, reaching maximal improvement at the postoperative 2 years. Clinical success rate and satisfaction rate were significantly higher in group A (76.9% and 87.2%, respectively) than those in group B (40.0% and 60.0%, respectively) at the last follow-up. Five patients (9.3%) required revision fusion surgeries, and they are all in group B. The final segmental range of motion was well maintained in monosegmental TDR, but not in bisegmental TDR.

CONCLUSION

Lumbar TDR using Prodisc II showed the successful outcomes with the clinical success rate of 76.9% and the satisfaction rate of 87.2% when the patients were presumed as good candidate for TDR. However, the patients who had the combined pathologies showed suboptimal results with high risk of the revision surgeries. Thus, the strict patient selection process is mandatory for the successful outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Complications and Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty and Lumbar Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To examine complications and rates of subsequent surgery following lumbar spinal fusion (LF) and lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) at up to 5-year follow-up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LF is commonly used in the management of degenerative disc disease causing pain refractory to nonoperative management. Lumbar TDA was developed as an alternative to fusion with the theoretical advantage of reducing rates of adjacent segment pathology and reoperation. Most prior reports comparing these 2 interventions have come from industry-sponsored investigational device exemption trials and no large-scale administrative database comparisons exist.

METHODS

The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge database was queried for patients aged 18 to 65 years undergoing lumbar TDA and LF for degenerative disc disease from 2004 to 2010. Patient characteristics were collected, and rates of complications and readmission were identified. Rates of repeat lumbar surgery were calculated at 90-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 52,877 patients met the inclusion criteria (LF = 50,462, TDA = 2415). Wound infections were more common following LF than TDA (1.03% vs. 0.25%, P < 0.001). Rates of subsequent lumbar surgery at 90-day and 1-year follow-up were lower with lumbar TDA than LF (90-day-TDA: 2.94% vs. LF: 4.01%, P = 0.007; 1-yr-TDA: 3.46% vs. LF: 4.78%, P = 0.009). However, there were no differences in rates of subsequent lumbar surgery between the 2 groups at 3-year and 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Lumbar TDA was associated with fewer early reoperations, though beyond 1 year, rates of reoperation were similar. Lumbar TDA may be associated with fewer acute infections, though this may be approach related and unrelated to the device itself.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Adverse Event Recording and Reporting in Clinical Trials Comparing Lumbar Disk Replacement with Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review

Study Design Systematic review. Objectives (1) To compare the quality of adverse event (AE) methodology and reporting among randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion with lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) using established AE reporting systems; (2) to compare the AEs and reoperations of lumbar spinal fusion with those from lumbar TDR; (3) to make recommendations on how to report AEs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) so that surgeons and patients have more-detailed and comprehensive information when making treatment decisions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane collaboration database, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse through May 2015 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials with at least 2 years of follow-up comparing lumbar artificial disk replacement with lumbar fusion were included. Patients were required to have axial or mechanical low back pain of ≥3 months' duration due to degenerative joint disease defined as degenerative disk disease, facet joint disease, or spondylosis. Outcomes included the quality of AE acquisition methodology and results reporting, and AEs were defined as those secondary to the procedure and reoperations. Individual and pooled relative risks and their 95% confidence intervals comparing lumbar TDR with fusion were calculated. Results RCTs demonstrated a generally poor description of methods for assessing AEs. There was a consistent lack of clear definition or grading for these events. Furthermore, there was a high degree of variation in reporting of surgery-related AEs. Most studies lacked adequate reporting of the timing of AEs, and there were no clear distinctions between acute or chronic AEs. Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated a twofold increased risk of AEs in patients having lumbar fusion compared with patients having lumbar TDR at 2-year follow-up, and this relative risk was maintained at 5 years. Furthermore, the pooled data demonstrated a 1.7 times greater relative risk of reoperation in the fusion group compared with lumbar TDR, although this risk decreased to 1.1 at 5-year follow-up. However, given the lack of quality and consistency in the methods of recording and reporting of AEs, we are unable to make a clear recommendation of one treatment over the other. Conclusions Based on the currently available literature, lumbar TDR appears to be comparable in safety to lumbar fusion. However, due to lack of consistency in reporting of AEs, it is difficult to make conclusions regarding the true safety profile of lumbar TDR. Standardization in AE reporting will significantly improve the reliability of the current literature.

Retrospective lumbar fusion outcomes measured by ODI sub-functions of 100 consecutive procedures

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain has been quite prevalent in the general population. Chronic low back pain can be defined as back pain lasting for more than 12 weeks. For chronic symptoms, fusion surgeries are the most common surgeries to alleviate the pain. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a measurement for subjective characteristics or attitudes that can be difficult to be directly measured. Respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement by indicating a position along a continuous line between two end points.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to investigate patient-reported pain using our own modified ODI with sub-functions. This allowed the study to show how patient outcomes differ with and without co-morbidity as well as functional outcomes after spinal fusion for degenerative disk disease (DDD) with the consistency of using one device and all procedures performed by the same surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred patients with DDD were treated with spinal fusion using one device. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon over a 3-year period. Patients were evaluated with discography and MRI preoperatively. Diagnosis of DDD was made when imaging showed bony segment erosion with decreased disc space >50%. Fifty-six patients participated in the initial questionnaire and their data were tabulated and statistically analyzed. Twenty male patients aged 49-85 (median: 67, mean: 66), and thirty-six female patients aged 30-84 (median: 67, mean 64) responded to the questionnaire. There were no differences in pain total by gender, fusion level, single/multiple fusions, degenerative versus deformity condition, type of graft, and lumber area (all p values ≥ 0.15).

RESULTS

Five-year pain measurements used by the VAS questionnaire as well as pain and functional outcomes measured by the ODI after lumbar fusion were superior to the results at 2 years (p = 0.025). Improvement was seen in all of the ODI sub-scores after 5 years, however, only physical function and social function reached statistical significance (p = 0.016 and 0.061, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Successful outcomes were demonstrated for each of the categories assessed and no statistical differences were seen in the ODI % for any comparison after 5 years on 19% of data reported which may have limited forecast reliability. Our data suggest that post-operative outcome is independent of preoperative condition, procedure to be preformed, age, and BMI. Our data support the continual practice of spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative disk disease.

Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The role of fusion of lumbar motion segments for the treatment of intractable low back pain (LBP) from degenerative disc disease (DDD) without deformities or instabilities remains controversially debated. Total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) has been used as an alternative in a highly selected patient cohort. However, the amount of long-term follow-up (FU) data on TDR is limited. In the United States, insurers have refused to reimburse surgeons for TDRs for fear of delayed complications, revisions, and unknown secondary costs, leading to a drastic decline in TDR numbers.

PURPOSE

To assess the mid- and long-term clinical efficacy as well as patient safety of TDR in terms of perioperative complication and reoperation rates.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Prospective, single-center clinical investigation of TDR with ProDisc II (Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA) for the treatment of LBP from lumbar DDD that has proven unresponsive to conservative therapy.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with a minimum of 5-year FU after TDR, performed for the treatment of intractable and predominant (≥80%) axial LBP resulting from DDD without any deformities or instabilities.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and patient satisfaction rates (three-scale outcome rating); complication and reoperation rates as well as elapsed time until revision surgery; patient's professional activity/employment status.

METHODS

Clinical outcome scores were acquired within the framework of an ongoing prospective clinical trial. Patients were examined preoperatively, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, annually from then onward. The data acquisition was performed by members of the clinic's spine unit including medical staff, research assistants, and research nurses who were not involved in the process of pre- or postoperative decision-making.

RESULTS

The initial cohort consisted of 201 patients; 181 patients were available for final FU, resembling a 90.0% FU rate after a mean FU of 7.4 years (range 5.0-10.8 years). The overall results revealed a highly significant improvement from baseline VAS and ODI levels at all postoperative FU stages (p<.0001). VAS scores demonstrated a slight (from VAS 2.6 to 3.3) but statistically significant deterioration from 48 months onward (p<.05). Patient satisfaction rates remained stable throughout the entire postoperative course, with 63.6% of patients reporting a highly satisfactory or a satisfactory (22.7%) outcome, whereas 13.7% of patients were not satisfied. The overall complication rate was 14.4% (N=26/181). The incidence of revision surgeries for general and/or device-related complications was 7.2% (N=13/181). Two-level TDRs demonstrated a significant improvement of VAS and ODI scores in comparison to baseline levels (p<.05). Nevertheless, the results were significantly inferior in comparison to one-level cases and were associated with higher complication (11.9% vs. 27.6%; p=.03) and inferior satisfaction rates (p<.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that the current data comprises the early experiences and learning curve associated with a new surgical technique, the results demonstrate satisfactory and maintained mid- to long-term clinical results after a mean FU of 7.4 years. Patient safety was proven with acceptable complication and reoperation rates. Fear of excessive late complications or reoperations following the primary TDR procedure cannot be substantiated with the present data. In carefully selected cases, TDR can be considered a viable treatment alternative to lumbar fusion for which spine communities around the world seem to have accepted mediocre clinical results as well as obvious and significant drawbacks.

In vivo analysis of cervical kinematics after implantation of a minimally constrained cervical artificial disc replacement

INTRODUCTION

To better understand cervical kinematics following cervical disc replacement (CDR), the in vivo behavior of a minimally constrained CDR was assessed.

METHODS

Radiographic analysis of 19 patients undergoing a 1-level CDR from C4-5 to C6-7 (DISCOVER, Depuy-Spine, USA) was performed. Neutral-lateral and flexion-extension radiographs obtained at preop, postop and late follow-up were analyzed for segmental angle and global angle (GA C2-7). Flexion-extension range of motion was analyzed using validated quantitative motion analysis software (QMA®, Medical Metrics, USA). The FSU motion parameters measured at the index and adjacent levels were angular range of motion (ROM), translation and center of rotation (COR). Translation and COR were normalized to the AP dimension of the inferior endplate of the caudal vertebra. All motion parameters, including COR, were compared with normative reference data.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 43.5 ± 7.3 years. The mean follow-up was 15.3 ± 7.2 months. C2-7 ROM was 35.9° ± 15.7° at preop and 45.4° ± 13.6° at follow-up (∆p < .01). Based on the QMA at follow-up, angular ROM at the CDR level measured 9.8° ± 5.9° and translation was 10.1 ± 7.8 %. Individuals with higher ROM at the CDR level had increased translation at that level (p < .001, r = 0.97), increased translation and ROM at the supra-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .8; p = .005, r = .6). There was a strong interrelation between angular ROM and translation at the supra-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .9) and caudal-adjacent level (p < .001, r = .9). The location of the COR at the CDR- and supra-adjacent levels was significantly different for the COR-X (p < .001). Notably, the COR-Y at the CDR level was significantly correlated with the extent of CDR-level translation (p = .02, r = .6). Shell angle, which may be influenced by implant size and positioning had no impact on angular ROM but was correlated with COR-X (p = .05, r = -.6) and COR-Y (p = .04, r = -.5).

CONCLUSION

The COR is an important parameter for assessing the ability of non-constrained CDRs to replicate the normal kinematics of a FSU. CDR size and location, both of which can impact shell angle, may influence the amount of translation by affecting the location of the COR. Future research is needed to show how much translation is beneficial concerning clinical outcomes and facet loading.

Cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR): global perspectives on use and trends

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Objectives: To obtain information from the global community regarding cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) use and trends before and after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of devices in 2007 and summarize available information on utilization and government approval for devices.

Methods: Data on utilization and approval were sought from PubMed, Google, FDA, and manufacturers’ websites. The 6195 members of AOSpine International were invited to participate in a survey to assess global C-ADR use and trends.

Results: Publically available data on utilization, trends, and approval outside of the US and Europe is limited. No studies of utilization were found. Of 1479 professionals responding to the survey, 50% had C-ADR specific training and reported ever performing C-ADR. Most respondents believed that C-ADR was safe and effective, but approximately one quarter responded that they did not know. Of those who had done C-ADR, 49% reported performing ≥ 1 before December compared with 92% after January 2008 and 51.3% indicated that all their C-ADRs were placed in a single level; 27% reported ≥ 1 failures that required revision. The majority foresee that C-ADR use will increase in the next 5 years. Most respondents believed that the best indication is radiculopathy from soft-disc pathology rather than myelopathy or disorders arising from spondylotic (hard-disc) pathology.

Conclusion: More C-ADR has been performed after January 2008. Most respondents expect the number to increase. There may be differences in failure rates when performed inside or outside of a sponsored research trial.

Preoperative education for lumbar radiculopathy: A survey of US spine surgeons

Background

We sought to determine current utilization, importance, content, and delivery methods of preoperative education by spine surgeons in the United States for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey was used to study a random sample of spine surgeons in the United States. The Spinal Surgery Education Questionnaire (SSEQ) was developed based on previous related surveys and assessed for face and content validity by an expert panel. The SSEQ captured information on demographics, content, delivery methods, utilization, and importance of preoperative education as rated by surgeons. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the current utilization, importance, content, and delivery methods of preoperative education by spine surgeons in the United States for patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

Results

Of 200 surgeons, 89 (45% response rate) responded to the online survey. The majority (64.2%) provide preoperative education informally during the course of clinical consultation versus a formal preoperative education session. The mean time from the decision to undergo surgery to the date of surgery was 33.65 days. The highest rated educational topics are surgical procedure (96.3%), complications (96.3%), outcomes/expectations (93.8%), anatomy (92.6%), amount of postoperative pain expected (90.1%), and hospital stay (90.1%). Surgeons estimated spending approximately 20% of the preoperative education time specifically addressing pain. Seventy-five percent of the surgeons personally provide the education, and nearly all surgeons (96.3%) use verbal communication with the use of a spine model.

Conclusions

Spine surgeons believe that preoperative education is important and use a predominantly biomedical approach in preparing patients for surgery. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings.

Physical capability outcomes after total disc replacement with ProDisc-L

Background

Lumbar disc arthroplasty (total disc replacement [TDR]) outcomes have been evaluated using subjective, patient-reported measures of pain, health, and functional impairment. As a condition of TDR coverage, our institution's health plan required that objective physical performance data be collected. Thus our study was designed to explore (1) the feasibility of using preoperative and 1-year postoperative performance on functional capacity tasks as an outcome metric for TDR with ProDisc-L (PD-L) (Synthes Spine, West Chester, Pennsylvania), (2) the magnitude and significance of changes in preoperative and postoperative performance, and (3) whether changes noted in performance are reflected in the subjective measures.

Methods

Seven adapted WorkWell tasks (physical capability assessment tool [PCAT]) (WorkWell Systems, Duluth, Minnesota) were performed preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively by 18 patients who received either single-level or 2-level PD-L implants. Demographic and medical data were reviewed.

Results

The PCAT was implemented easily, and the tasks took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Percent improvement and preoperative and postoperative physical capability outcomes for each PCAT task are as follows: squat, 79% (10.7 ± 7.1 repetitions vs 19.2 ± 2.0 repetitions, P < .001); forward bend, 121% (110.2 ± 68.8 seconds vs 243.6 ± 77.2 seconds, P < .001); kneel, 92% (283.2 ± 173.2 seconds vs 544.7 ± 109.3 seconds, P < .001); floor-to-waist lift, 128% (16.1 ± 9.9 lb vs 36.7 ± 20.3 lb, P < .001); horizontal carry, 119% (19.7 ± 8.6 lb vs 43.2 ± 18.3 lb, P < .001); push, 32% (67.7 ± 19.2 lb vs 89.4 ± 24.4 lb, P < .001); and pull, 40% (57.6 ± 17.1 lb vs 80.9 ± 26.4 lb, P < .001). Visual analog scale scores for pain (5.1 ± 1.7 vs 1.4 ± 1.6, P < .001), Oswestry Disability Index scores (49.0% ± 13.2% vs 15.2% ± 14.3%, P < .001), and amount of narcotic use (26.1 ± 43.8 mg of morphine equivalent vs 1.9 ± 7.3 mg of morphine equivalent, P = .031) also improved. In single-level cases, comparison of L4-5 versus L5-S1 showed significant differences only with the forward bend task (P = .002).

Conclusions/Clinical Relevance

The physical capability outcome may be a feasible outcome metric. PD-L implantation may result in substantial improvements in physical performance. Similar benefits shown in a larger series over a longer timeframe could have important implications for the long-term health, productivity, and cost of health care for this patient population.

Safety and effectiveness of bone allografts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this review was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes in studies of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using allograft versus ACDF with autograft, ACDF with cage devices, and cervical disc arthroplasty for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc disease.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ACDF remains the standard of care for patients with cervical radiculopathy who are unresponsive to conservative medical care. However, no known study has compared patient outcomes after ACDF with allograft, ACDF with autograft, ACDF with cage, and disc arthroplasty.

METHODS

After applying strict inclusion criteria, 21 comparisons from 20 studies formed the basis for this review. Patient outcomes included neck and arm pain, neck disability index (NDI), physical component summary (PCS), and mental component summary (MCS) scores from the SF-36, radiographic fusion rate, and select adverse events (e.g., wound infection, dysphagia, and adjacent segment degeneration).

RESULTS

The four treatment groups included ACDF with allograft (allograft, n = 1341), ACDF with autograft (autograft, n = 568), ACDF with cage (cage, n = 87), and cervical disc arthroplasty (arthroplasty, n = 603). Neck pain was reduced similarly by 63% to 69% in all groups. Comparable improvements were realized in arm pain after ACDF with allograft (75%) or arthroplasty (73%) that were greater than other treatment groups (62-68%). There was notable improvement in neck disability (61-65%) with allograft and arthroplasty after treatment. PCS scores improved with allograft (42%) and arthroplasty (44%). MCS scores improved modestly (16-21%) with allograft and arthroplasty. Fusion rates were 91% for allograft and autograft and 97% for cage. Adverse events were uncommon in all groups.

CONCLUSION

ACDF with allograft, ACDF with autograft, ACDF with cage, and cervical disc arthroplasty show similar improvements in pain, function, and quality of life with correspondingly low adverse event rates. All ACDF procedures result in high fusion rates.

Impact of total disc arthroplasty on the surgical management of lumbar degenerative disc disease: Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2008

Background:

Spinal fusion is the most rapidly increasing type of lumbar spine surgery for various lumbar degenerative pathologies. The surgical treatment of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease may involve decompression, stabilization, or arthroplasty procedures. Lumbar disc athroplasty is a recent technological advance in the field of lumbar surgery. This study seeks to determine the clinical impact of anterior lumbar disc replacement on the surgical treatment of lumbar spine degenerative pathology. This is a retrospective assessment of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS).

Methods:

The NIS was searched for ICD-9 codes for lumbar and lumbosacral fusion (81.06), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (81.07), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (81.08), as well as for procedure codes for revision fusion surgery in the lumbar and lumbosacral spine (81.36, 81.37, and 81.38). To assess lumbar arthroplasty, procedure codes for the insertion or replacement of lumbar artificial discs (84.60, 84.65, and 84.68) were queried. Results were assayed from 2000 through 2008, the last year with available data. Analysis was done using the lme4 package in the R programming language for statistical computing.

Results:

A total of nearly 300,000 lumbar spine fusion procedures were reported in the NIS database from 2000 to 2008; assuming a representative cross-section of the US health care market, this models approximately 1.5 million procedures performed over this time period. In 2005, the first year of its widespread use, there were 911 lumbar arthroplasty procedures performed, representing 3% of posterolateral fusions performed in this year. Since introduction, the number of lumbar spine arthroplasty procedures has consistently declined, to 653 total procedures recorded in the NIS in 2008. From 2005 to 2008, lumbar arthroplasties comprised approximately 2% of lumbar posterolateral fusions. Arthroplasty patients were younger than posterior lumbar fusion patients (42.8 ± 11.5 vs. 55.9 ± 15.1 years, P < 0.0000001). The distribution of arthroplasty procedures was even between academic and private urban facilities (48.5% and 48.9%, respectively). While rates of posterolateral lumbar spine fusion steadily grew during the period (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.06, P < 0.0000001), rates of revision surgery and anterior spinal fusion remained static.

Conclusions:

The impact of lumbar arthroplasty procedures has been minimal. Measured as a percentage of more common lumbar posterior arthrodesis procedures, lumbar arthroplasty comprises only approximately 2% of lumbar spine surgeries performed in the United States. Over the first 4 years following the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the frequency of lumbar disc arthroplasty has decreased while the number of all lumbar spinal fusions has increased.