Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 9/2015

Open Access 01-09-2015 | Original Article

An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease

Authors: Shi-bao Lu, Yong Hai, Chao Kong, Qing-yi Wang, Qingjun Su, Lei Zang, Nan Kang, Xiang-long Meng, Yu Wang

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To report our 11-year minimum clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as complications of the Charite III total disc replacement (TDR).

Methods

A total of 35 patients indicated for total disc replacement were implanted with the Charite III prosthesis. Clinical evaluation included visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiological parameters of intervertebral disc height (IDH), range of motion (ROM), lumbar lordosis, lumbar scoliosis and prosthesis position were evaluated. Complications and reoperation rates were also assessed.

Results

Thirty-two patients had a minimum 11-year follow-up, and 33 prostheses were implanted. The mean follow-up time was 11.8 years, ranging from 11.3 to 13.8 years. Twenty-eight patients (87.5 %) had a successful outcome, as defined by the FDA. Reoperation was performed in 2 patients for adjacent segment degeneration and pedicle fracture (1 case each). Both VAS and ODI scores showed significant improvement compared to baseline. At the final follow-up, the ROM of both the index- and adjacent-level showed an obvious decrease. The IDH of the index level showed a tendency to decrease, but the difference was not significant. The IDH of adjacent levels were not significantly affected by the surgery. Mean lumbar lordosis was increased at the final follow-up, and lumbar scoliosis over 3° was observed in 12 patients (37.5 %), with a mean angle of 5.6° (range 3°–12°). Of all 35 prostheses, 15 were left-shifted, 3 were right-shifted and 14 were just in the middle. In the coronal plane, 25 were rated as ideally placed, 5 were discretely shifted, 4 were slightly shifted and 1 was markedly shifted. In the sagittal plane, only 12 prostheses were rated as ideally placed, 14 were discretely shifted and 9 were suboptimally placed. Prosthesis subsidence was noted in 3 (9.4 %) patients (the subsidence distances were 3.1, 4.2 and 2.8 mm, respectively). Heterotopic ossification was detected in 25 segments (71.4 %), consisting of Class-I heterotopic ossification in 7 segments (20.0 %), Class-II in 9 segments (25.7 %), and Class-III in 9 segments (25.7 %). Class-IV heterotopic ossification was not observed.

Conclusion

The cumulative survival was 100 % at a mean follow-up of 11.8 years. Clinical and radiological results were satisfactory and long-term clinical results were maintained for a mean follow-up of 11.8 years. Reoperation and complication rates are acceptable, and our study does not substantiate the fear of reoperation or late complications. The results of our long-term follow-up indicate that, with strict indication, TDR is a safe and effective procedure as an alternative to lumbar fusion.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Frelinghuysen P, Huang RC, Girardi FP et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin North Am 36:293–299CrossRefPubMed Frelinghuysen P, Huang RC, Girardi FP et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin North Am 36:293–299CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Geisler FH (2005) Surgical technique of lumbar artificial disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc. Neurosurgery 56:46–57CrossRefPubMed Geisler FH (2005) Surgical technique of lumbar artificial disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc. Neurosurgery 56:46–57CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Zhou J, Wang X, Hou T et al (2002) One versus two BAK fusion cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion to L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a randomized, controlled prospective study in 25 patients with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 27:2753–2757CrossRef Zhou J, Wang X, Hou T et al (2002) One versus two BAK fusion cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion to L4–L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a randomized, controlled prospective study in 25 patients with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 27:2753–2757CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Radcliff KE, Kepler CK, Jakoi A et al (2013) Adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine following different treatment interventions. Spine J 13:1339–1349CrossRefPubMed Radcliff KE, Kepler CK, Jakoi A et al (2013) Adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine following different treatment interventions. Spine J 13:1339–1349CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS (2013) Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 13:342–351CrossRefPubMed Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS (2013) Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J 13:342–351CrossRefPubMed
6.
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
7.
go back to reference Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV et al (2005) The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2192–2199CrossRef Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV et al (2005) The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2192–2199CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD 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 30:1565–1575CrossRefPubMed Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD 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 30:1565–1575CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ 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 9:374–386CrossRefPubMed Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ 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 9:374–386CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M (2008) Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine 33:123–131CrossRefPubMed Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M (2008) Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine 33:123–131CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:1512–1519PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:1512–1519PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF 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:E1600–E1611CrossRef Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF 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:E1600–E1611CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Regan JJ (2005) Clinical results of Charité lumbar total disc replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 36:323–340CrossRefPubMed Regan JJ (2005) Clinical results of Charité lumbar total disc replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 36:323–340CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ross R, Mirza AH, Norris HE et al (2007) Survival and clinical outcome of SB Charite III disc replacement for back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:785–789CrossRefPubMed Ross R, Mirza AH, Norris HE et al (2007) Survival and clinical outcome of SB Charite III disc replacement for back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:785–789CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Gioia G, Mandelli D, Randelli F (2007) The Charite III artificial disc lumbar disc prosthesis: assessment of medium-term results. J Orthop Traumatol 8:134–139CrossRef Gioia G, Mandelli D, Randelli F (2007) The Charite III artificial disc lumbar disc prosthesis: assessment of medium-term results. J Orthop Traumatol 8:134–139CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Van de Kelft E, Verguts L (2012) Clinical outcome of monosegmental total disc replacement for lumbar disc disease with ball-and-socket prosthesis (Maverick): prospective study with four-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78:355–363CrossRefPubMed Van de Kelft E, Verguts L (2012) Clinical outcome of monosegmental total disc replacement for lumbar disc disease with ball-and-socket prosthesis (Maverick): prospective study with four-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78:355–363CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Johnsen LG, Brinckmann P, Hellum C et al (2013) Segmental mobility, disc height and patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomised trial comparing disc replacement and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Bone Joint J 95-B:81–89CrossRefPubMed Johnsen LG, Brinckmann P, Hellum C et al (2013) Segmental mobility, disc height and patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomised trial comparing disc replacement and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Bone Joint J 95-B:81–89CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference vanOoij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J Spinal Discord Tech 16:369–383CrossRef vanOoij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J Spinal Discord Tech 16:369–383CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al (2007) CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1012–1018CrossRef Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al (2007) CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1012–1018CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Hellum C, Berg L, Gjertsen Ø et al (2012) Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: second report of a randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:2063–2073CrossRef Hellum C, Berg L, Gjertsen Ø et al (2012) Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: second report of a randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:2063–2073CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T et al (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6:242–247CrossRefPubMed Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T et al (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6:242–247CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Chung SK, Kim YE, Wang KC (2009) Biomechanical effect of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement: a study with finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1281–1286CrossRef Chung SK, Kim YE, Wang KC (2009) Biomechanical effect of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement: a study with finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1281–1286CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Park CK, Ryu KS, Jee WH (2008) Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1755–1761CrossRef Park CK, Ryu KS, Jee WH (2008) Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1755–1761CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M et al (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1701–1707CrossRef Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M et al (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1701–1707CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R et al (2006) Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 6:258–266CrossRefPubMed Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R et al (2006) Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 6:258–266CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Boss OL, Tomasi SO, Baurle B et al (2013) Lumbar total disc replacement: correlation of clinical outcome and radiological parameters. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:1923–1930CrossRef Boss OL, Tomasi SO, Baurle B et al (2013) Lumbar total disc replacement: correlation of clinical outcome and radiological parameters. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:1923–1930CrossRef
27.
go back to reference McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384CrossRefPubMed McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine J et al (2003) Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:384CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali el-H et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359 Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali el-H et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359
29.
go back to reference David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661–666CrossRefPubMed David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661–666CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87-A:490–496 Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87-A:490–496
31.
go back to reference Park CK, Ryu KS, Lee KY et al (2012) Clinical outcome of lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-L in degenerative disc disease: minimum 5-year follow-up results at a single institute. Spine 37:672–677CrossRefPubMed Park CK, Ryu KS, Lee KY et al (2012) Clinical outcome of lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-L in degenerative disc disease: minimum 5-year follow-up results at a single institute. Spine 37:672–677CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV et al (2006) Charité total disc replacement–clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV et al (2006) Charité total disc replacement–clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Meir AR, Freeman BJ, Fraser RD et al (2013) Ten-year survival and clinical outcome of the AcroFlex lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. Spine J 13:13–21CrossRefPubMed Meir AR, Freeman BJ, Fraser RD et al (2013) Ten-year survival and clinical outcome of the AcroFlex lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. Spine J 13:13–21CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr et al (2003) Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the prodisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:435–440CrossRefPubMed Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr et al (2003) Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the prodisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:435–440CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Ishihara H, Osada R, Kanamori M et al (2001) Minimum 10-year follow-up study of anterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 14:91–99CrossRefPubMed Ishihara H, Osada R, Kanamori M et al (2001) Minimum 10-year follow-up study of anterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 14:91–99CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Godde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M et al (2003) Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 28:1693–1699PubMed Godde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M et al (2003) Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 28:1693–1699PubMed
37.
go back to reference Goldstein JA, Macenski MJ, Griffith SL et al (2001) Lumbar sagittal alignment after fusion with a threaded interbody cage. Spine 26:1137–1142CrossRefPubMed Goldstein JA, Macenski MJ, Griffith SL et al (2001) Lumbar sagittal alignment after fusion with a threaded interbody cage. Spine 26:1137–1142CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Lazennec JY, Ramare S, Arafati N et al (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9:47–55PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Lazennec JY, Ramare S, Arafati N et al (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9:47–55PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Kong Chao Lu, Shibao Hai Yong et al (2014) Radiological changes after Activ L total disc replacement and its correlation with clinical outcome. Chinese Journal of Spine and Spinal Cord 24:193–198 Kong Chao Lu, Shibao Hai Yong et al (2014) Radiological changes after Activ L total disc replacement and its correlation with clinical outcome. Chinese Journal of Spine and Spinal Cord 24:193–198
40.
go back to reference Long W, Ge C, Hong-qi Z et al (2013) Lumbar lordosis after disc replacement. ZhongguoZuzhiGongchengYanjiu 17: 5446–5451 Long W, Ge C, Hong-qi Z et al (2013) Lumbar lordosis after disc replacement. ZhongguoZuzhiGongchengYanjiu 17: 5446–5451
41.
go back to reference Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC et al (2007) Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 16:411–421PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC et al (2007) Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 16:411–421PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Yue JJ, Mo FF (2010) Clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Aesculap Activ-L artificial disc in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. BMC Surg 10:14PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Yue JJ, Mo FF (2010) Clinical study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Aesculap Activ-L artificial disc in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. BMC Surg 10:14PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, van Royen BJ et al (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19:1262–1280PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, van Royen BJ et al (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19:1262–1280PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Wei J, Song Y, Sun L et al (2013) Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop 37:1315–1325PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wei J, Song Y, Sun L et al (2013) Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop 37:1315–1325PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K 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 14:1417–1431CrossRefPubMed Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K 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 14:1417–1431CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000CrossRefPubMed Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease
Authors
Shi-bao Lu
Yong Hai
Chao Kong
Qing-yi Wang
Qingjun Su
Lei Zang
Nan Kang
Xiang-long Meng
Yu Wang
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3939-5

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

European Spine Journal 9/2015 Go to the issue