Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 1/2009

01-06-2009 | Original Article

Two-level total lumbar disc replacement

Authors: Mario Di Silvestre, Georgios Bakaloudis, Francesco Lolli, Francesco Vommaro, Patrizio Parisini

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) has been widely used as a treatment option for 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. However, recent studies have presented conflicting results and some authors concluded that outcome deteriorated when disc replacement was performed bisegmentally, with an increase of complications for bisegmental replacements in comparison with monosegmental disc arthroplasty. The goal of the present retrospective study is to investigate results in a group of patients who have received bisegmental TDR with SB Charitè III artificial disc for degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years, and to compare the results of 2-level disc replacement versus 1-level patients treated with the same prosthesis. A total of 32 patients had at least 3-years follow-up and were reviewed. The average age of the patients was 38.5 years. There were 11 males and 21 females. About 16 patients received 2-level TDR (SB Charitè III) and 16 received 1-level TDR (SB Charitè III). Both radiographic and functional outcome analysis, including patient’s satisfaction, was performed. There were no signs of degenerative changes of the adjacent segments in any case of the 2- or 1-level TDR. There was no statistically significant difference between 2- and 1-level TDR both at 12 months and at 3-years follow-up on functional outcome scores. There was a statistically insignificant difference concerning the patients satisfaction between 1- and 2-level surgeries at the last follow-up (P = 0.46). In the 2-level TDR patients, there were 5 minor complications (31.25%), whereas major complications occurred in 4 more patients (25%) and required a new surgery in 2 cases (12.5%). In the 1-level cases there were 2 minor complications (12.5%) and 2 major complications (12.5%) and a new revision surgery was required in 1 patient (6.25%). In conclusion, the use of 2-level disc replacement at last follow-up presented a higher incidence of complications than in cases with 1-level replacement. At the same time it was impossible to delineate a clear difference in evaluating the questionnaires between the follow-up results of patients receiving 2- and 1-level TDR: the 2-level group presented slightly lower scores at follow-up, but none was statistically significant.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Apolone G, Mosconi P, Ware JE (1997) Questionario sullo stato di salute SF-36. Guerini e Associati, Milano Apolone G, Mosconi P, Ware JE (1997) Questionario sullo stato di salute SF-36. Guerini e Associati, Milano
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(Suppl 2):131–136 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(Suppl 2):131–136
3.
go back to reference Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, Nanieva R, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Kershaw T, Husted DS (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 30:2192–2199PubMedCrossRef Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, Nanieva R, Pfeiffer F, Fenk-Mayer A, Kershaw T, Husted DS (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 30:2192–2199PubMedCrossRef
4.
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 CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575PubMedCrossRef 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 CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chung SS, Lee CS, Kang CS (2006) Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: a prospective study with a 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:411–415PubMedCrossRef Chung SS, Lee CS, Kang CS (2006) Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: a prospective study with a 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:411–415PubMedCrossRef
6.
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 21:995–1000PubMedCrossRef Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE (2003) Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28(Suppl):110–117CrossRef Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE (2003) Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28(Suppl):110–117CrossRef
8.
go back to reference David T (1993) Lumbar disc prosthesis: surgical technique, indications and clinical results in 22 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Spine J 1:254–259CrossRef David T (1993) Lumbar disc prosthesis: surgical technique, indications and clinical results in 22 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Spine J 1:254–259CrossRef
9.
go back to reference David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITÉ artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661–666PubMedCrossRef David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITÉ artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661–666PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Enker P, Steffee A, McMillin C, Kepler L, Biscup R, Miller S (1993) Artificial disc replacement: preliminary report with a 3-year minimum follow-up. Spine 18:1061–1670PubMedCrossRef Enker P, Steffee A, McMillin C, Kepler L, Biscup R, Miller S (1993) Artificial disc replacement: preliminary report with a 3-year minimum follow-up. Spine 18:1061–1670PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMed Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMed
12.
go back to reference Griffith SL, Shelokov AP, Buttner-Janz K, LeMaire JP, Zeegers WS (1994) A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the LINK SB Charite intervertebral prosthesis: the initial European experience. Spine 19:1842–1849PubMedCrossRef Griffith SL, Shelokov AP, Buttner-Janz K, LeMaire JP, Zeegers WS (1994) A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the LINK SB Charite intervertebral prosthesis: the initial European experience. Spine 19:1842–1849PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hannibal M, Thomas DJ, Low J, Hsu KY, Zucherman J (2007) ProDisc-L total disc replacement a comparison of 1-level versus 2-level arthroplasty patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine 32:2322–2326PubMedCrossRef Hannibal M, Thomas DJ, Low J, Hsu KY, Zucherman J (2007) ProDisc-L total disc replacement a comparison of 1-level versus 2-level arthroplasty patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine 32:2322–2326PubMedCrossRef
14.
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 6:242–247PubMedCrossRef Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T et al (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6:242–247PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S, Friesem T, Brayda-Bruno M (2005) Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:219–223PubMed Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S, Friesem T, Brayda-Bruno M (2005) Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:219–223PubMed
16.
go back to reference Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Ali el-HS et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité trade mark artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359PubMedCrossRef Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Ali el-HS et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité trade mark artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1576–1583PubMedCrossRef McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1576–1583PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Patel AA, Brodke DS, Pimenta L, Bono CM, Hilibrand AS, Harrop JS, Riew KD, Youssef JA, Vaccaro AR (2008) Revision Strategies in lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty. Spine 33:1276–1283PubMedCrossRef Patel AA, Brodke DS, Pimenta L, Bono CM, Hilibrand AS, Harrop JS, Riew KD, Youssef JA, Vaccaro AR (2008) Revision Strategies in lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty. Spine 33:1276–1283PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV et al (2006) Charitè total disc replacement–clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195PubMedCrossRef Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV et al (2006) Charitè total disc replacement–clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15:183–195PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Roland M, Fairbank JC (2000) The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124PubMedCrossRef Roland M, Fairbank JC (2000) The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Sachs BL, Vanharanta H, Spivey MA et al (1987) Dallas discogram description: a new classification of CT/discography in low back disorders. Spine 12:287–294PubMedCrossRef Sachs BL, Vanharanta H, Spivey MA et al (1987) Dallas discogram description: a new classification of CT/discography in low back disorders. Spine 12:287–294PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al (2007) Charité versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 32:1012–1018PubMedCrossRef Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al (2007) Charité versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 32:1012–1018PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 32:782–790PubMedCrossRef Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 32:782–790PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Tropiano P, Huang RC, Federico PG et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement: seven to eleven year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:490–496PubMedCrossRef Tropiano P, Huang RC, Federico PG et al (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement: seven to eleven year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:490–496PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Trouillier H, Kern P, Refior HJ, Muller-Gerbl M (2006) A prospective morphological study of facet joint integrity following intervertebral disc replacement with the Charitè artificial disc. Eur Spine J 15:174–182PubMedCrossRef Trouillier H, Kern P, Refior HJ, Muller-Gerbl M (2006) A prospective morphological study of facet joint integrity following intervertebral disc replacement with the Charitè artificial disc. Eur Spine J 15:174–182PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement a report of 27 patients with SB Charitè disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383PubMed Van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement a report of 27 patients with SB Charitè disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383PubMed
27.
go back to reference Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217PubMedCrossRef Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Zigler J (2003) Clinical results with ProDisc: European experience and U.S. investigation device exemption study. Spine 28(Suppl):163–166CrossRef Zigler J (2003) Clinical results with ProDisc: European experience and U.S. investigation device exemption study. Spine 28(Suppl):163–166CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Zigler JE (2004) Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J 4(Suppl):260–267CrossRef Zigler JE (2004) Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J 4(Suppl):260–267CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Zigler JE, Sachs BL, Rashbaum RF et al (2005) Two level total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc: results and comparison to one level cases. In: Proceedings of the NASS 20th annual meeting. Philadelphia, PA, USA. Spine J 5(suppl 1):4–5 Zigler JE, Sachs BL, Rashbaum RF et al (2005) Two level total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc: results and comparison to one level cases. In: Proceedings of the NASS 20th annual meeting. Philadelphia, PA, USA. Spine J 5(suppl 1):4–5
31.
go back to reference Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, Lorenz M, Hadjipavlov A (2008) An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 33(11):1262–1269PubMedCrossRef Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, Lorenz M, Hadjipavlov A (2008) An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 33(11):1262–1269PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Two-level total lumbar disc replacement
Authors
Mario Di Silvestre
Georgios Bakaloudis
Francesco Lolli
Francesco Vommaro
Patrizio Parisini
Publication date
01-06-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 1/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0982-0

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2009

European Spine Journal 1/2009 Go to the issue