Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 10/2009

01-10-2009 | Original Article

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Authors: Svante Berg, Tycho Tullberg, Björn Branth, Claes Olerud, Hans Tropp

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The study design includes a prospective, randomised controlled study comparing total disc replacement (TDR) with posterior fusion. The main objective of this study is to compare TDR with lumbar spinal fusion, in terms of clinical outcome, in patients referred to a spine clinic for surgical evaluation. Fusion is effective for treating chronic low back pain (LBP), but has drawbacks, such as stiffness and possibly adjacent level degradation. Motion-preserving options have emerged, of which TDR is frequently used because of these drawbacks. How the results of TDR compare to fusion, however, is uncertain. One hundred and fifty-two patients with a mean age of 40 years (21–55) were included: 90 were women, and 80 underwent TDR. The patients had not responded to a conservative treatment programme and suffered from predominantly LBP, with varying degrees of leg pain. Diagnosis was based on clinical examination, radiographs, MRI, and in unclear cases, diagnostic injections. Outcome measures were global assessment (GA), VAS for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, SF36 and EQ5D at 1 and 2 years. Follow-up rate was 100%, at both 1 and 2 years. All outcome variables improved in both groups between preoperative and follow-up assessment. The primary outcome measure, GA, revealed that 30% in the TDR group and 15% in the fusion group were totally pain-free at 2 years (P = 0.031). TDR patients had reached maximum recovery in virtually all variables at 1 year, with significant differences compared to the fusion group. The fusion patients continued to improve and at 2 years had results similar to TDR patients apart from numbers of pain-free. Complications and reoperations were similar in both groups, but pedicle screw removal as additive surgery, was frequent in the fusion group. One year after surgery, TDR was superior to spinal fusion in clinical outcome, but this difference had diminished by 2 years, apart from (VAS for back pain and) numbers of pain-free. The long-term benefits have yet to be examined.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Andersen T, Videbaek TS, Hansen ES et al (2008) The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11–13 year follow-up. Eur Spine J 17:272–280. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0494-8 PubMedCrossRef Andersen T, Videbaek TS, Hansen ES et al (2008) The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11–13 year follow-up. Eur Spine J 17:272–280. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-007-0494-8 PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bertagnoli R, Kumar S (2002) Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 11:130–136. doi:10.1007/s005860100316 CrossRef Bertagnoli R, Kumar S (2002) Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 11:130–136. doi:10.​1007/​s005860100316 CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Blumenthal S, McAfee P, Guyer R 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: I. Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e PubMedCrossRef Blumenthal S, McAfee P, Guyer R 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: I. Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575. doi:10.​1097/​01.​brs.​0000170587.​32676.​0e PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dmitriev AE, Gill NW, Kuklo TR et al (2008) Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine J 8(6):918–925PubMedCrossRef Dmitriev AE, Gill NW, Kuklo TR et al (2008) Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine J 8(6):918–925PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus non-surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 26:2521–2534. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002 PubMedCrossRef Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P et al (2001) Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus non-surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 26:2521–2534. doi:10.​1097/​00007632-200112010-00002 PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fritzell P, Hägg O, Nordwall A et al (2003) Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J 12:178–189PubMed Fritzell P, Hägg O, Nordwall A et al (2003) Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J 12:178–189PubMed
10.
go back to reference Geisler F, Blumenthal S, Guyer R et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 1:143–154CrossRef Geisler F, Blumenthal S, Guyer R et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 1:143–154CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1497–1503PubMed Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1497–1503PubMed
13.
go back to reference Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:338–345PubMed Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:338–345PubMed
18.
25.
go back to reference Strömqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O et al (2005) One-year report from the Swedish National Spine Register. Acta Orthop Scand 76(5):1–24 Strömqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O et al (2005) One-year report from the Swedish National Spine Register. Acta Orthop Scand 76(5):1–24
26.
go back to reference Zeegers W, Bohnen L, Laaper M et al (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: two-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217. doi:10.1007/s005860050160 PubMedCrossRef Zeegers W, Bohnen L, Laaper M et al (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: two-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217. doi:10.​1007/​s005860050160 PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak 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 32:1155–1162. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318054e377 PubMedCrossRef Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak 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 32:1155–1162. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e318054e377​ PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up
Authors
Svante Berg
Tycho Tullberg
Björn Branth
Claes Olerud
Hans Tropp
Publication date
01-10-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1047-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2009

European Spine Journal 10/2009 Go to the issue

Announcements

Announcements