Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study

Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective single-institution cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain.

METHODS

Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings.

RESULTS

There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, β=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.

Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17-3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs -4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

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.

Using inpatient gradual diagnostics to identify the treatment strategy for lumbar back pain-Can treadmill gait analysis objectify the patients' declaration of pain relief?

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic lumbar back pain (CLBP) often present with an altered gait profile, which is a crucial element of good functioning in everyday life. In patients with multisegmental spinal pathologies and incongruity between radiologic imaging and clinical presentation, inpatient gradual diagnostics (IGD) is performed to determine the precise origin of the disabling pain. The underlying principle of IGD is the assumption that by locally administering an analgesic and anti-inflammatory agent to possible surgical target areas, the surgical effect can be temporarily simulated. The conclusions drawn from IGD are, however, mostly based on the patients' subjective feedback about pain relief.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether reported pain relief during IGD can be objectified by gait analysis. We hypothesized that patients with greater pain relief during IGD would show greater improvement in their pathologic gait and stance.

METHODS

Treadmill gait and stance analyses were prospectively performed on CLBP patients before and after a one-week IGD. Self-report measures included the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE

Compared with a reference group (n = 28), IGD patients (n = 57) at admission showed reduced velocity, cadence, step length, and swing phase (p < .01 each). Their stance phase was increased by 5% of the gait cycle, and a more asymmetrical total load distribution during stance was observed. No difference was seen in stride width or foot rotation. While many patients reported good pain relief during IGD, no correlation was observed between subjective improvement and treadmill measures. We can thus confirm a pathologic gait profile in patients with CLBP. Based on our findings, gait analysis would not yet seem suitable to objectify IGD results. The short time interval between admission and discharge may not suffice to change a pathological gait that has developed over years.

Validation of Pre-operative Templating for Total Disc Replacement Surgery

Objectives

This was an analytic retrospective observational study. The aims were (1) to validate patient-specific templating process by comparing postoperative range of motion (ROM) with that predicted by the model, (2) to retrospectively determine the ideal implant size, height, configuration, and location to evaluate if the ROM achieved could have been improved, and (3) to correlate postoperative ROM and clinical outcome.

Background

Previous research revealed that after total disc replacement surgery, 34% of patients with less than 5° of postoperative ROM developed adjacent segment disease. The match between patient anatomy (size, facet orientation, disc height) and implant parameters are likely to affect postoperative ROM and clinical outcomes.

Methods

Seventeen consecutive patients were implanted with 22 ProDisc-L devices between 2008 and 2015. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of the implanted segment were constructed from preoperative computed tomography scans and virtually implanted with the ProDisc-L implant. ROM was determined with the endpoints of facet impingement in flexion and implant contact in extension. FE templating was used to determine the optimal implant size and location. ROM was then measured directly from flexion and extension radiographs and compared to predicted ROM. Pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were used to correlate ROM with clinical outcomes.

Results

No significant difference was found between the actual and predicted ROM. The computational templating procedure identified an optimal ROM that was significantly greater than actual ROM. The ROM in our cohort could have been improved by an average of 1.2° or 12% had a different implant size or position been used.

Conclusions

FE analyses accurately predicted ROM in this cohort and can facilitate selection of the optimal implant size and location that we believe will increase the chance of achieving clinical success with the application of this technology.

Why Lumbar Artificial Disk Replacements (LADRs) Fail

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine why artificial disk replacements (ADRs) fail by examining results of 91 patients in FDA studies performed at a single investigational device exemption (IDE) site with minimum 2-year follow-up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patients following lumbar ADR generally achieve their 24-month follow-up results at 3 months postoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Every patient undergoing ADR at 1 IDE site by 2 surgeons was evaluated for clinical success. Failure was defined as <50% improvement in ODI and VAS or any additional surgery at index or adjacent spine motion segment. Three ADRs were evaluated: Maverick, 25 patients; Charité, 31 patients; and Kineflex, 35 patients. All procedures were 1-level operations performed at L4-L5 or L5-S1. Demographics and inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar and will be discussed.

RESULTS

Overall clinical failure occurred in 26% (24 of 91 patients) at 2-year follow-up. Clinical failure occurred in: 28% (Maverick) (7 of 25 patients), 39% (Charité) (12 of 31 patients), and 14% (Kineflex) (5 of 35 patients). Causes of failure included facet pathology, 50% of failure patients (12 of 24). Implant complications occurred in 5% of total patients and 21% of failure patients (5 of 24). Only 5 patients went from a success to failure after 3 months. Only 1 patient went from a failure to success after a facet rhizotomy 1 year after ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Seventy-four percent of patients after ADR met strict clinical success after 2-year follow-up. The clinical success versus failure rate did not change from their 3-month follow-up in 85 of the 91 patients (93%). Overall clinical success may be improved most by patient selection and implant type.

The importance of proximal fusion level selection for outcomes of multi-level lumbar posterolateral fusion

Background

There are few studies about risk factors for poor outcomes from multi-level lumbar posterolateral fusion limited to three or four level lumbar posterolateral fusions. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of multi-level lumbar posterolateral fusion and to search for possible risk factors for poor surgical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 37 consecutive patients who underwent multi-level lumbar or lumbosacral posterolateral fusion with posterior instrumentation. The outcomes were deemed either 'good' or 'bad' based on clinical and radiological results. Many demographic and radiological factors were analyzed to examine potential risk factors for poor outcomes. Student t-test, Fisher exact test, and the chi-square test were used based on the nature of the variables. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to exclude confounding factors.

Results

Twenty cases showed a good outcome (group A, 54.1%) and 17 cases showed a bad outcome (group B, 45.9%). The overall fusion rate was 70.3%. The revision procedures (group A: 1/20, 5.0%; group B: 4/17, 23.5%), proximal fusion to L2 (group A: 5/20, 25.0%; group B: 10/17, 58.8%), and severity of stenosis (group A: 12/19, 63.3%; group B: 3/11, 27.3%) were adopted as possible related factors to the outcome in univariate analysis. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that only the proximal fusion level (superior instrumented vertebra, SIV) was a significant risk factor. The cases in which SIV was L2 showed inferior outcomes than those in which SIV was L3. The odds ratio was 6.562 (95% confidence interval, 1.259 to 34.203).

Conclusions

The overall outcome of multi-level lumbar or lumbosacral posterolateral fusion was not as high as we had hoped it would be. Whether the SIV was L2 or L3 was the only significant risk factor identified for poor outcomes in multi-level lumbar or lumbosacral posterolateral fusion in the current study. Thus, the authors recommend that proximal fusion levels be carefully determined when multi-level lumbar fusions are considered.

Indications for lumbar total disc replacement: selecting the right patient with the right indication for the right total disc

Summary of Background Data

As with any surgery, care should be taken to determine patient selection criteria for lumbar TDR based on safety and optimizing outcome. These goals may initially be addressed by analyzing biomechanical implant function and early clinical experience, ongoing evaluation is needed to refine indications.

Objective

The purpose of this work was to synthesize information published on general indications for lumbar TDR. A secondary objective was to determine if indications vary for different TDR designs.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify lumbar TDR articles. Articles were reviewed and patient selection criteria and indications were synthesized.

Results

With respect to safety, there was good agreement in the literature to exclude patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis or fracture. Risk of injury to vascular structures due to the anterior approach was often addressed by excluding patients with previous abdominal surgery in the area of disc pathology or increased age. The literature was very consistent on the primary indication for TDR being painful disc degeneration unresponsive to at least 6 months of nonoperative care. Literature investigating the impact of previous spine surgery was mixed; however, prior surgery was not necessarily a contra-indication, provided the patient otherwise met selection criteria. The literature was mixed on setting a minimum preoperative disc height as a selection criterion. There were no publications investigating whether some patients are better/worse candidates for specific TDR designs. Based on the literature a proposal for patient selection criteria is offered.

Conclusions

Several TDR indications and contra-indications are widely accepted. No literature addresses particular TDR design being preferable for some patients. As with any spine surgery, ongoing evaluation of TDR outcomes will likely lead to more detailed general and device design specific indications.

Outcome of salvage lumbar fusion after lumbar arthroplasty

Study Design

Retrospective review.

Purpose

This study aims to define the role of lumbar fusion for persistent back pains after the lumbar disc replacement.

Overview of Literature

Little is written about lumbar fusion after optimally placed lumbar arthroplasty in patients with persistent lower back pains.

Methods

Retrospective review of cases of lumbar artificial disc requiring subsequent fusion because of persistent back pains despite optimally placed artificial discs. Outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Clinical improvements indicated 25% improvement in ODI and VAS values.

Results

Five patients met the study criteria. The mean baseline ODI for the five patients was 52. The mean baseline VAS scores for back and leg pains were 76 and 26, respectively. All the five patients had optimally placed prosthesis. The indication for surgery was the constant low back pains found in all the patients. Revision surgery involved disc explantation and fusion in two of the patients and posterolateral fusion without removing the prosthesis in three. None of the patients achieved adequate pain control after the revision surgery despite the solid bony fusion documented by postoperative computed tomography. The mean ODI value after the fusion was 55. The mean values for back and leg pains VAS were 72 and 30, respectively.

Conclusions

Lack of good pain relief after successful lumbar artifical disc replacements may indicate different etiology for the back pains. The spine-treating surgeons should have a high threshold level to perform salvage fusion at that level.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar artificial intervertebral disc replacement: driven by the choice of comparator

BACKGROUND

Lower back pain is a common and costly condition in Australia. This paper aims to conduct an economic evaluation of lumbar artificial intervertebral disc replacement (AIDR) compared with lumbar fusion for the treatment of patients suffering from significant axial back pain and/or radicular (nerve root) pain, secondary to disc degeneration or prolapse, who have failed conservative treatment.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness approach was used to compare costs and benefits of AIDR to five fusion approaches. Resource use was based on Medicare Benefits Schedule claims data and expert opinion. Effectiveness and re-operation rates were based on published randomized controlled trials. The key clinical outcomes considered were narcotic medication discontinuation, achievement of overall clinical success, achievement of Oswestry Disability Index success and quality-adjusted life-years gained.

RESULTS

AIDR was estimated to be cost-saving compared with fusion overall ($1600/patient); however, anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion were less costly by $2155 and $807, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness depends on the outcome considered and the comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

AIDR is potentially a cost-saving treatment for lumbar disc degeneration, although longer-term follow-up data are required to substantiate this claim. The incremental cost-effectiveness depends on the outcome considered and the comparator, and further research is required before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

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.

The predictive value of the baseline Oswestry Disability Index in lumbar disc arthroplasty

Object

The goal of the study was to determine patient factors predictive of good outcome after lumbar disc arthroplasty. Specifically, the paper examines the relationship of the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to patient outcome at 1 year.

Methods

The study is a retrospective review of 20 patients undergoing a 1-level lumbar disc arthroplasty at the author's institution between 2004 and 2008. All data were collected prospectively. Data included the ODI, visual analog scale scores, and patient demographics.

Results

All patients underwent a 1-level disc arthroplasty at L4–5 or L5–S1. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline ODI. Patients with an ODI between 38 and 59 demonstrated better outcomes with lumbar disc arthroplasty. Only 1 (20%) of 5 patients with a baseline ODI higher than 60 reported a good outcome. In contrast, 13 (87%) of 15 patients with an ODI between 38 and 59 showed a good outcome (p = 0.03). The negative predictive value of using ODI > 60 is 60% in patients who are determined to be candidates for lumbar arthroplasty.

Conclusions

Lumbar arthroplasty is very effective in some patients. Other patients do not improve after surgery. The baseline ODI results are predictive of outcome in patients selected for lumbar disc arthroplasty. A baseline ODI > 60 is predictive of poor outcome. A high ODI may be indicative of psychosocial overlay.

Overview of disc arthroplasty-past, present and future

Degenerative disc disease is one of the most frequent spinal disorders. The anatomy and the biomechanics of the intervertebral disc are very complex, and the pathomechanics of its degeneration are poorly understood. Despite this complexity and uncertainty, great advances have been made in the field of disc replacement technology, with promising results. Difficulties are continuously being encountered, but careful analysis of the results and intensive research and development will assist in countering these problems. There are approximately 40 clinical reports in the literature describing various aspects of randomised controlled trials involving intervertebral disc arthroplasty. However, the majority of these publications do not provide reliable information, in that they give only interim results and/or the results from just one of the many centres in multicentre studies. Such publications must be interpreted with caution, since they do not always represent the results of the whole study population and may hence be underpowered. We identified six randomised controlled trials that compared the final clinical outcomes of disc arthroplasty and spinal fusion. The present systematic review attempts to give an overview of the current status of disc arthroplasty.

Effect of lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the segmental motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent level: an in vitro biomechanical study

Object

The artificial disc has been proposed as an alternative to spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. The primary aim of this biomechanical study was to compare motion and intradiscal pressure (IDP) in a ball-and-socket artificial disc–implanted cadaveric lumbar spine, at the operative and adjacent levels, using a displacement-controlled setup. A secondary comparison involved a “salvage” construct, consisting of pedicle screws (PSs) added in supplementation to the artificial disc construct.

Methods

Ten human cadaveric lumbosacral spines (L2–S1) were potted at L-2 and S-1. All measurements were initially made in the intact spine, followed by implantation of the artificial disc, and finally by the salvage PS condition. For the artificial disc condition, a Maverick ball-and-socket artificial disc was implanted at L4–5. For the PS condition, CD Horizon PSs were placed at L4–5, and the artificial disc was left in place. A displacement-controlled, custom-designed testing apparatus was used to impart motion in the sagittal and coronal planes. Motion at both the implanted level (L4–5) and immediately adjacent levels (L3–4 and L5–S1) was measured. Intradiscal pressure at the rostral adjacent level (L3–4) was also measured. The Tukey test was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05).

Results

In flexion, no significant difference was noted between the artificial disc and the intact spine with regard to motion at the operative level, motion at adjacent levels, or IDP. In lateral bending, while the artificial disc significantly decreased operative-level motion (p < 0.05), no significant difference was noted in adjacent-level motion or IDP. With regard to extension, the artificial disc significantly increased operative level motion and decreased the rostral adjacent level (L3–4) motion and IDP (p < 0.05). Caudal adjacent-level (L5–S1) motion was not significantly different.

In flexion and lateral bending, the addition of PSs significantly decreased motion at the implanted level when compared with the intact spine and the artificial disc (p < 0.05). This decrease in motion at the index level was associated with a compensatory increase in motion at both adjacent levels in flexion only (p < 0.05), but not in lateral bending (p > 0.05). The IDP was significantly increased in lateral bending but not in flexion. With regard to extension, the significant decrease in IDP that was noted with the artificial disc persisted despite the addition of PSs (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The artificial disc either maintains or reduces adjacent-level motion and pressure, compared with the intact spine. The addition of PSs to the artificial disc construct leads to significantly increased motion at adjacent levels in flexion and significantly increased IDP in lateral bending. At the operative level, the artificial disc is associated with hypermobility in extension, which is restored to the intact state after the addition of supplementary PSs.

Dynamics of improvement following total lumbar disc replacement: is the outcome predictable?

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective clinical study of total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) with ProDisc II (Synthes, Paoli, PA).

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether baseline variables VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) and ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) correspond with late and final postoperative outcome parameters and to identify early predictors of late outcome following total lumbar disc replacement (TDR).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previously published TDR studies reported on the pooled data averages collected from various cohort sizes. The individual patient's prognosis as well as prognostic factors of postoperative improvement remain unestablished.

METHODS

Data were accumulated prospectively and included VAS and ODI scores. The subjective outcome evaluation was based on a 3-scale grading system ("highly satisfied," "satisfied," "not satisfied"). An analysis was performed to ascertain whether the late and final outcome following TDR can be predicted based on preoperative and early postoperative data from the 3 and 6 month follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

The overall results from 161 patients with an average FU of 4 years (mean: 45.5 months, range: 24.1-94.4 months) revealed a significant and maintained improvement of VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.0001). The most pronounced changes occurred within the early postoperative period (P < 0.0001) with no significant changes thereafter (P > 0.05).Baseline ODI levels were significantly correlated with VAS/ODI scores and patient satisfaction rates at the final FU (P < 0.0001).After surgery, early and late ODI levels were highly significantly correlated with each other (r = 0.84, P < 0.0001). Similar associations were observed between early and late VAS scores and patient satisfaction rates (P < 0.006).The individual patient's subjective outcome evaluation revealed stable postoperative results. An improvement or a deterioration by 2 classes on a 3-scale grading system was only observed in 3.1% (n = 5/161) of all cases overall. Patients with an early "highly satisfactory" result (n = 83) maintained either a satisfactory (15.7%, n = 13/83) or a highly satisfactory outcome (79.5%, n = 66/83) in 95.2% of all cases (n = 79/83).Conversely, the probability that patients with an "unsatisfactory" outcome would still achieve a "highly satisfactory" result after the early postoperative period was 5.0%.

CONCLUSION

Baseline ODI and early postoperative outcome parameters (< or =6 months) revealed significant and strong associations with the final results following TDR. While the vast majority of patients with an early highly satisfactory outcome maintained satisfactory results at later FU stages, any significant improvement considered as "highly satisfied" is unlikely in a group of patients which reported early unsatisfactory results. In summary, any clinically relevant changes are unlikely to occur after the early postoperative period.The current findings offer a foundation for weighing both the patients and the spine surgeons expectations against possible realistic achievements. Although the data show that the midterm outcome at a FU of 4 years (mean: 45.5 months, range: 24.1-94.4 months) is predictable following TDR, the long-term results of lumbar disc replacements still need to be established.