Safety Of Total Disc Replacement Research Articles

The short-term efficacy and safety of artificial total disc replacement for selected patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PurposeTo systematically compare the efficacy and safety of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) with the efficacy and safety of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD).MethodsThe electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for the period from the establishment of the databases to March 2018. The peer-reviewed articles that investigate the safety and efficacy of TDR and ALIF were retrieved under the given search terms. Quality assessment must be done independently by two authors according to each item of criterion. The statistical analyses were performed using RevMan (version 5.3) and Stata (version 14.0). The random-effect model was carried out to pool the data. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the robustness of the results of meta-analyses by omitting the articles one by one.ResultsSix studies (5 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 1 observational study) involving 1093 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the studies could be considered as low to moderate. Operative time (MD = 4.95; 95% CI -18.91–28.81; P = 0.68), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 4.95; 95% CI -18.91–28.81; P = 0.68), hospital stay (MD = -0.33; 95% CI, -0.67–0.01; P = 0.05), complications (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.91–1.02; P = 0.18) and re-operation rate (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.14–2.12; P = 0.38) were without significant clinical difference between groups. Patients in the TDR group had higher postoperative satisfaction (RR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.07–1.32; P = 0.001) and, better improvements in ODI (MD = -10.99; 95% CI -21.50- -0.48; P = 0.04), VAS (MD = -10.56; 95% CI -19.99- -1.13; P = 0.03) and postoperative lumbar mobility than did patients in the ALIF group.ConclusionsThe results showed that TDR has significant superiority in term of reduced clinical symptoms, improved physical function and preserved range of motion for the treatment of LDDD compared to ALIF. TDR may be an ideal alternative for the selected patients with LDDD in the short-term. However, the results of this study cannot suggest the use of TDR instead of ALIF in lumbar spine treatment only in the light of short term results. More studies that are well-designed, that are of high-quality and that have larger samples are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of TDR with at the long-term follow-up.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level 3

Comparison of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With Surgical Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 5-Year Outcomes From Randomized Controlled Trials.

Study Design:Meta-analysis.Objectives:To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of total disc replacement (TDR) compared with fusion in patients with functionally disabling chronic low back pain due to single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 5 years.Methods:PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes at 5 years for TDR compared with fusion in patients with single-level lumbar DDD. Outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain scores, reoperations, and patient satisfaction. All analyses were conducted using a random-effects model; analyses were reported as relative risk (RR) ratios and mean differences (MDs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted for different outcome definitions, high loss to follow-up, and high heterogeneity.Results:The meta-analysis included 4 studies. TDR patients had a significantly greater likelihood of ODI success (RR 1.0912; 95% CI 1.0004, 1.1903) and patient satisfaction (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03, 1.24) and a significantly lower risk of reoperation (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.35, 0.77) than fusion patients. There was no association with improvement in back pain scores whether patients received TDR or fusion (MD −2.79; 95% CI −8.09, 2.51). Most results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Results for ODI success and patient satisfaction were sensitive to different outcome definitions but remained in favor of TDR.Conclusions:TDR is an effective alternative to fusion for lumbar DDD. It offers several clinical advantages over the longer term that can benefit the patient and reduce health care burden, without additional safety consequences.

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

A retrospective analysis. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 4.

Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of total disc replacement surgery compared with spinal fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration. Low back pain (LBP), a major health problem in Western countries, can be caused by a variety of pathologies, one of which is degenerative disc disease (DDD). When conservative treatment fails, surgery might be considered. For a long time, lumbar fusion has been the “gold standard” of surgical treatment for DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has increased in popularity as an alternative for lumbar fusion. A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed up to October 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts, and relevant full text articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted relevant data and outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective cohort studies were identified. In all three trials, the total disc replacement was compared with lumbar fusion techniques. The Charité trial (designed as a non-inferiority trail) was considered to have a low risk of bias for the 2-year follow up, but a high risk of bias for the 5-year follow up. The Charité artificial disc was non-inferior to the BAK® Interbody Fusion System on a composite outcome of “clinical success” (57.1 vs. 46.5%, for the 2-year follow up; 57.8 vs. 51.2% for the 5-year follow up). There were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Prodisc artificial disc (also designed as a non-inferiority trail) was found to be statistically significant more effective when compared with the lumbar circumferential fusion on the composite outcome of “clinical success” (53.4 vs. 40.8%), but the risk of bias of this study was high. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Flexicore trial, with a high risk of bias, found no clinical relevant differences on pain and physical function when compared with circumferential spinal fusion at 2-year follow up. Because these are preliminary results, in addition to the high risk of bias, no conclusions can be drawn based on this study. In general, these results suggest that no clinical relevant differences between the total disc replacement and fusion techniques. The overall success rates in both treatment groups were small. Complications related to the surgical approach ranged from 2.1 to 18.7%, prosthesis related complications from 2.0 to 39.3%, treatment related complications from 1.9 to 62.0% and general complications from 1.0 to 14.0%. Reoperation at the index level was reported in 1.0 to 28.6% of the patients. In the three trials published, overall complication rates ranged from 7.3 to 29.1% in the TDR group and from 6.3 to 50.2% in the fusion group. The overall reoperation rate at index-level ranged from 3.7 to 11.4% in the TDR group and from 5.4 to 26.1% in the fusion group. In conclusion, there is low quality evidence that the Charité is non-inferior to the BAK cage at the 2-year follow up on the primary outcome measures. For the 5-year follow up, the same conclusion is supported only by very low quality evidence. For the ProDisc, there is very low quality evidence for contradictory results on the primary outcome measures when compared with anterior lumbar circumferential fusion. High quality randomized controlled trials with relevant control group and long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TDR.