The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06184-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
To compare the long-term clinical results and complications of two revision strategies for patients with failed total disc replacements (TDRs).
In 19 patients, the TDR was removed and the intervertebral defect was filled with a femoral head bone strut graft. In addition, instrumented posterolateral fusion was performed (removal group). In 36 patients, only a posterolateral instrumented fusion was performed (fusion group). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were completed pre- and post-revision surgery. Intra- and post-operative complications of both revision strategies were assessed.
The median follow-up was 12.3 years (range 5.3–24.3). In both the removal and fusion groups, a similar (p = 0.515 and p = 0419, respectively) but significant decrease in VAS (p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and ODI score (p = 0.033 and p = 0.013, respectively) at post-revision surgery compared to pre-revision surgery was seen. A clinically relevant improvement in VAS and ODI score was found in 62.5% and 43.8% in the removal group and in 43.5% and 39.1% in the fusion group (p = 0.242 and p = 0.773, respectively). Removal of the TDR was associated with substantial intra-operative complications such as major vessel bleeding and ureter lesion. The percentage of late re-operations for complications such as pseudarthrosis were comparable for both revision strategies.
Revision of a failed TDR is clinically beneficial in about half of the patients. No clear benefits for additional TDR removal as compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion alone could be identified. In particular, when considering the substantial risks and complications, great caution is warranted with removal of the TDR.
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 226 kb)586_2019_6184_MOESM1_ESM.pptx
Berg S et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18(10):1512–1519 CrossRef
Blumenthal S et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1565–1575 (discussion E387–91) CrossRef
Gornet MF et al (2011) Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(25):E1600–E1611 CrossRef
Guyer RD et al (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9(5):374–386 CrossRef
Zigler J et al (2007) Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(11):1155–1162 (discussion 1163) CrossRef
Zigler JE, Glenn J, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 17(6):504–511 CrossRef
Skold C, Tropp H, Berg S (2013) Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 22(10):2288–2295 CrossRef
Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):338–345 CrossRef
Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13(3):375–377 CrossRef
van den Eerenbeemt KD et al (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19(8):1262–1280 CrossRef
Jacobs W et al (2012) Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD008326
Siepe CJ et al (2010) The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, X-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(22):1991–2003 CrossRef
Cunningham BW et al (2009) Revision strategies for single- and two-level total disc arthroplasty procedures: A biomechanical perspective. Spine J 9(9):735–743 CrossRef
de Maat GH et al (2009) Removal of the Charite lumbar artificial disc prosthesis: surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(5):334–339 CrossRef
Punt I et al (2012) Clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements. Eur Spine J 21(12):2558–2564 CrossRef
Punt IM et al (2008) Complications and reoperations of the SB Charite lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 17(1):36–43 CrossRef
Lu SB et al (2015) An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 24(9):2056–2064 CrossRef
Siepe CJ et al (2014) Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up. Spine J 14(8):1417–1431 CrossRef
Guyer RD et al (2016) Five-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial comparing two lumbar total disc replacements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(1):3–8 CrossRef
Malham GM, Parker RM (2017) Early experience with lateral lumbar total disc replacement: utility, complications and revision strategies. J Clin Neurosci 39:176–183 CrossRef
Alahmadi H, Deutsch H (2014) Outcome of salvage lumbar fusion after lumbar arthroplasty. Asian Spine J 8(1):13–18 CrossRef
Leary SP et al (2007) Revision and explantation strategies involving the CHARITE lumbar artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(9):1001–1011 CrossRef
McAfee PC et al (2006) Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(11):1217–1226 CrossRef
McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(2):99–107 CrossRef
Park HJ et al (2018) Radiological and clinical long-term results of heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 18(5):762–768 CrossRef
Punt IM et al (2009) Periprosthetic tissue reactions observed at revision of total intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials 30(11):2079–2084 CrossRef
Veruva SY et al (2017) Periprosthetic UHMWPE wear debris induces inflammation, vascularization, and innervation after total disc replacement in the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(5):1369–1381 CrossRef
Wright TM (2017) CORR insights((R)): periprosthetic UHMWPE wear debris induces inflammation, vascularization, and innervation after total disc replacement in the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(5):1382–1385 CrossRef
- Long-term clinical outcome of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements
T. F. G. Vercoulen
S. M. J. van Kuijk
M. G. M. Schotanus
N. P. Kort
L. W. van Rhijn
P. C. P. H. Willems
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
European Spine Journal
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Mail Icon II