Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-10-2013 | Original Article

Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Caroline Sköld, Hans Tropp, Svante Berg

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2013

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate long-term clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) compared with posterior lumbar fusion.

Methods

This prospective randomized controlled trial comprised 152 patients; 80 were randomized to TDR and 72 to fusion. All patients had chronic low back pain (CLBP) and had not responded to nonsurgical treatment. Primary outcome measure was global assessment of back pain (GA), secondary outcome measures were back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ5D, and SF-36. All measures were collected from SweSpine (Swedish national register for spinal surgery) at 1, 2, and 5 years. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 99.3 %.

Results

Both groups showed clinical improvement at 5-year follow-up. For GA, 38 % (30/80) in the TDR group were totally pain free vs. 15 % (11/71) in the fusion group (p < 0.003). Back pain and improvement of back pain were better in the TDR group: VAS back pain at 5 years 23 ± 29 vs. 31 ± 27, p = 0.009, and VAS improvement of back pain at 5 years 40 ± 32 vs. 28 ± 32, p = 0.022. ODI and improvement in ODI were also better in the TDR group: ODI at 5 years 17 ± 19 vs. 23 + 17, p = 0.02 and ODI improvement at 5 years 25 ± 18 vs. 18 ± 19 (p = 0.02). There was no difference in complications and reoperations between the two groups.

Conclusions

Global assessment of low back pain differed between the two surgical groups at all follow-up occasions. Significant differences between groups concerning back pain, pain improvement, and ODI were present at 1 year and disappeared at 2 years, but reappeared at the 5-year follow-up.

Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Resnick DK, Shaffer WO, Loeser JD (2009) Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Spine 34:1094–1109PubMedCrossRef

Mirza SK, Deyo RA (2007) Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine 32:816–823PubMedCrossRef

Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2001) 2001 volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine 26:2521–2532PubMedCrossRef

Brox JI, Sørensen R, Friis A, Nygaard Ø, Indahl A, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 28:1913–1921PubMedCrossRef

Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-Macdonald J, Yu L, Barker K, Collins R (2005) Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 330:1–7CrossRef

Brox JI, Nygaard ØP, Holm I, Keller A, Ingebrigtsen T, Reikerås O (2010) Four-year follow-up of surgical versus non-surgical therapy for chronic low back pain. Ann Rheum Dis 69:1643–1648PubMedCrossRef

Froholdt A, Reikeraas O, Holm I, Keller A, Brox JI (2012) No difference in 9-year outcome in CLBP patients randomized to lumbar fusion versus cognitive intervention and exercises. Eur Spine J 21:2531–2538PubMedCrossRef

Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(7):1497–1503PubMed

Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:338–345PubMedCrossRef

10.

Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313PubMedCrossRef

11.

Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 29:1938–1944PubMedCrossRef

12.

Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, Garcia 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: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575 (discussion E387–391)PubMedCrossRef

13.

Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO, Haider TT, Cammisa F 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 (discussion 1163)PubMedCrossRef

14.

Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH 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 9:374–386PubMedCrossRef

15.

Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, Olerud C, Tropp H (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:1512–1519PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, Nygaard OP, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, Ro M et al (2011) Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ 342:d2786PubMedCrossRef

17.

Zigler JE, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc. J Neurosurg Spine 17:493–501PubMedCrossRef

18.

Chao S, Malloy JP, Bono CM (2011) Complications specific to motion-sparing devices in the lumbar spine. Semin Spine Surg 23:123–134CrossRef

19.

Jacobs W, Na VDG, Tuschel AMDK, Peul W, Aj V, Fc O (2012) Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: a cochrane review. Spine 38:24–36CrossRef

20.

Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952 (discussion 2952)PubMedCrossRef

21.

The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRef

22.

Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRef

23.

Berg S, Tropp H, Leivseth G (2011) Disc height and motion patterns in the lumbar spine in patients operated with total disc replacement or fusion for discogenic back pain. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Spine J 11:991–998PubMedCrossRef

24.

Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141PubMedCrossRef

25.

Scheer SJ, Watanabe TK, Radack KL (1997) Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain. Part 3. Subacute/chronic pain interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78:414–423PubMedCrossRef

26.

Taylor ME (1989) Return to work following back surgery: a review. Am J Ind Med 16:79–88PubMedCrossRef

27.

Berg S, Tropp H (2010) Results from a randomized controlled study between total disc replacement and fusion compared with results from a spine register. SAS J 4:68–74CrossRef

Title: Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial
Authors: Caroline Sköld
Hans Tropp
Svante Berg
Publication date: 01-10-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2926-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2013

Thoracoscopically assisted corpectomy and percutaneous transpedicular instrumentation in management of burst thoracic and thoracolumbar fractures

Cement volume is the most important modifiable predictor for pain relief in BKP: results from SWISSspine, a nationwide registry

AO spine injury classification system: a revision proposal for the thoracic and lumbar spine

Biomechanical characteristics of cement/gelatin mixture for prevention of cement leakage in vertebral augmentation

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Zafar Ahmad et al. concerning “Antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and vertebral bone edema (Modic type 1 changes): a double-blind randomized controlled trial of efficacy” by Albert HB et al., Eur Spine J (2013) 22:697–707

Unstable atlas fracture treatment by anterior plate C1-ring osteosynthesis using a transoral approach