Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-02-2014 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Authors: Min-Jie Rao, Sheng-Sheng Cao

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of artificial total disc replacement (TDR) with fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

Summary of background data

Spinal fusion is the conventional surgical treatment for lumbar DDD. Recently, TDR has been developed to avoid the negative effects of the fusion by preserving function of the motion segment. Controversy still surrounds regarding whether TDR is better.

Methods

We systematically searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Clinical, Ovid, BIOSIS and Cochrane registry of controlled clinical trials) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2013 in which TDR was compared with the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Then, we performed the meta-analysis.

Results

Seven relevant RCTs with a total of 1,584 patients were included. TDR was more effective in ODI (MD −5.09; 95 % CI [−7.33, −2.84]; P < 0.00001), VAS score (MD −5.31; 95 % CI [−8.35, −2.28]; P = 0.0006), shorter duration of hospitalization (MD −0.82; 95 % CI [−1.38, −0.26]; P = 0.004) and a greater proportion of willing to choose the same operation again (OR 2.32; 95 % CI [1.69, 3.20]; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between the two treatment methods regarding operating time (MD −44.16; 95 % CI [−94.84, 6.52]; P = 0.09), blood loss (MD −29.14; 95 % CI [−173.22, 114.94]; P = 0.69), complications (OR 0.72; 95 % CI [0.45, 1.14]; P = 0.16), reoperation rate (OR 0.83; 95 % CI [0.39, 1.77]; P = 0.63) and the proportion of patients who returned to full-time/part-time work (OR 1.10; 95 % CI [0.86, 1.41]; P = 0.47).

Conclusion

TDR showed significant safety and efficacy comparable to lumbar fusion at 2 year follow-up. TDR demonstrated superiorities in improved physical function, reduced pain and shortened duration of hospitalization. The benefits of operating time, blood loss, motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be proved.

Berg S, Tropp HT, 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

Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J et al (2008) Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:2909–2914CrossRef

Bono CM, Kadaba M, Vaccaro AR (2009) Posterior pedicle fixation-based dynamic stabilization devices for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:376–383PubMedCrossRef

Kalanithi PS, Patil CG, Boakye M (2009) National complication rates and disposition after posterior lumbar fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1963–1969CrossRef

Lee SE, Park SB, Jahng TA, Chung CK, Kim HJ (2008) Clinical experience of the dynamic stabilization system for the degenerative spine disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 43:221–226PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Reyes-Sanchez A, Zarate-Kalfopulos B, Ramirez-Mora I, Rosales-Olivarez LM, Alpizar-Aguirre A, Sanchez-Bringas G (2010) Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine with the Accuflex rod system as a stand-alone device: experience in 20 patients with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:2164–2170PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Milby AH, Anakwenze OA, Balderston RA (2009) Segmental contribution toward total lumbar range of motion in disc replacement and fusions: a comparison of operative and adjacent levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2510–2517CrossRef

Gamradt SC, Wang JC (2005) Lumbar disc arthroplasty. Spine J 5:95–103PubMedCrossRef

Yajun W, Yue Z, Xiuxin H, Cui C (2010) A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 19:1250–1261PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

Oremus M, Wolfson C, Perrault A, Demers L, Momoli F, Moride Y (2001) Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer’s disease drug trials. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 12:232–236PubMedCrossRef

11.

van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1290–1299

12.

Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N (2006) Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:82PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

14.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558PubMedCrossRef

15.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560PubMedCrossRef

16.

Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1929–1941CrossRef

17.

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 (Phila Pa 1976) 30(1565–1575):E387–E391

18.

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 (Phila Pa 1976) 33:123–131CrossRef

19.

Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM 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) 32:1155–1163CrossRef

20.

Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH (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

21.

Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB (2005) Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36:301–313PubMedCrossRef

22.

Delamarter R, Zigler JE, Balderston RA, Cammisa FP, Goldstein JA, Spivak JM (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-l total disc replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: results at 24 months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:705–715PubMedCrossRef

23.

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 18:1512–1519PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Ozer AF, Crawford NR, Sasani M et al (2010) Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: two-year follow-up and comparison with fusion. Open Orthop J 4:137–141PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Morishita Y, Ohta H, Naito M et al (2011) Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. Eur Spine J 20:1480–1485PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J, Welch WC (2007) Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2551–2557CrossRef

27.

Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:685–690CrossRef

28.

Yu SW, Yen CY, Wu CH, Kao FC, Kao YH, Tu YK (2012) Radiographic and clinical results of posterior dynamic stabilization for the treatment of multisegment degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:583–589PubMedCrossRef

29.

Zencica P, Chaloupka R, Hladikova J, Krbec M (2010) Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbosacral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a retrospective radiological and clinical analysis. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 77:124–130PubMed

30.

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

31.

Levin DA, Hale JJ, Bendo JA (2007) Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 65:29–36PubMed

32.

Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944CrossRef

33.

van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, van Royen BJ, Peul WC, van Tulder MW (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19:1262–1280PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

34.

Frelinghuysen P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FJ (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin North Am 36:293–299PubMedCrossRef

35.

McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1576–1583 E388–E390CrossRef

36.

Freeman BJ, Davenport J (2006) Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 3):S439–S447PubMedCrossRef

37.

Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev D1352

38.

Han X, Zhu Y, Cui C, Wu Y (2009) A meta-analysis of circumferential fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E618–E625CrossRef

39.

Madan SS, Boeree NR (2003) Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 12:567–575PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Title: Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors: Min-Jie Rao
Sheng-Sheng Cao
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1905-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective

Summary of background data

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Summary of background data

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Recommendation for measuring clinical outcome in distal radius fractures: a core set of domains for standardized reporting in clinical practice and research

The role of surgical timing in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis

The effect of gentamicin in irrigating solutions on articular infection prophylaxis during arthroscopic ACL reconstruction

Posterior root tear of the medial and lateral meniscus

Methodological challenges in the use of hip-specific composite outcomes: linking measurements from hip fracture trials to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework

Key outcomes are usually not reported in published fracture secondary prevention programs: results of a systematic review