Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Original Article

Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses

Authors: Fan Ding, Zhiwei Jia, Zhigang Zhao, Lin Xie, Xinfeng Gao, Dezhang Ma, Ming Liu

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Although many meta-analyses have been performed to compare total disc replacement (TDR) and fusion for treating lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD), their findings are inconsistent. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing TDR with fusion for treating LDDD, to assist decision makers in selection among conflicting meta-analyses, and to provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence.

Methods

This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Multiple databases were comprehensively searched for meta-analyses comparing TDR with fusion for treating LDDD. Meta-analyses only comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently assessed meta-analysis quality and extracted data. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analyses represented the best evidence.

Results

A total of five meta-analyses were included. All these studies only included RCTs were determined as Level-II evidence. The scores of Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) ranged from 6 to 9 (median 7). A high-quality Cochrane review was chosen according to the Jadad algorithm. This best available evidence found that statistical significances were observed between TDR and fusion for LDDD regarding disability, pain relief, and pain in the short term, but it was not over clinically important differences. The prevent effects on adjacent segment and facet joint degeneration, as the primary goal of adopting TDR stated by the manufacturers, were not appropriately evaluated.

Conclusions

There is discord in results from meta-analyses that assessed TDR and fusion for LDDD. According to this systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing TDR and fusion for LDDD, the current best available evidence suggests that TDR may be an effective technique for the treatment of selected patients with LDDD, and is at least equal to lumbar fusion in the short term. However, considering that disadvantages may appear after years, spine surgeons should be cautions about performing TDR on a large scale.
Literature
1.
van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM (1995) A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain 62(2):233–240CrossRefPubMed
2.
Walker BF, Muller R, Grant WD (2003) Low back pain in Australian adults: the economic burden. Asia Pac J Public Health 15(2):79–87CrossRefPubMed
3.
Frelinghuysen P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr (2005) Lumbar total disc replacement part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin N Am 36(3):293–299CrossRef
4.
Kalanithi PS, Patil CG, Boakye M (2009) National complication rates and disposition after posterior lumbar fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(18):1963–1969CrossRef
5.
6.
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(23):2510–2517CrossRef
7.
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 N Am 36(3):301–313CrossRef
8.
Moreno P, Boulot J (2008) Comparative study of short-term results between total artificial disc prosthesis and anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 94(3):282–288CrossRefPubMed
9.
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(25):E1600–E1611CrossRef
10.
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(2):123–131CrossRef
11.
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 twenty-four months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(8):705–715CrossRefPubMed
12.
Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, Garcia R Jr, Regan JJ, Ohnmeiss DD (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(14):1565–1575 (discussion E1387–E1591) CrossRef
13.
Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO 3rd, Haider TT, Cammisa F, Zuchermann J, Balderston R, Kitchel S, Foley K, Watkins R, Bradford D, Yue J, Yuan H, Herkowitz H, Geiger D, Bendo J, Peppers T, Sachs B, Girardi F, Kropf M, Goldstein J (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(11):1155–1162 (discussion 1163) CrossRef
14.
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(10):1512–1519CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Rao MJ, Cao SS (2014) Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(2):149–158CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wei J, Song Y, Sun L, Lv C (2013) Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop 37(7):1315–1325CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Nie H, Chen G, Wang X, Zeng J (2015) Comparison of total disc replacement with lumbar fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 25(1):60–67PubMed
18.
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(8):1250–1261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Jacobs W, Van der Gaag NA, Tuschel A, de Kleuver M, Peul W, Verbout AJ, Oner FC (2012) Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD008326
20.
Mascarenhas R, Cvetanovich GL, Sayegh ET, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph C, Bach BR Jr (2015) Does double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improve postoperative knee stability compared with single-bundle techniques? A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 31(6):1185–1196CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zhao JG, Wang J, Wang C, Kan SL (2015) Intramedullary nail versus plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(11):e599CrossRef
22.
Mascarenhas R, Chalmers PN, Sayegh ET, Bhandari M, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Romeo AA (2014) Is double-row rotator cuff repair clinically superior to single-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 30(9):1156–1165CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zhao JG, Wang J, Long L (2015) Surgical versus conservative treatments for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(26):e1057CrossRef
24.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD (2003) Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(1):1–3CrossRefPubMed
26.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1013–1020CrossRefPubMed
28.
Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2(12):e1350CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ (2015) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24(5):1017–1030CrossRefPubMed
31.
Hoff EK, Strube P, Pumberger M, Zahn RK, Putzier M (2016) ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial. Eur Spine J 25(5):1558–1566CrossRefPubMed
32.
Noshchenko A, Hoffecker L, Lindley EM, Burger EL, Cain CM, Patel VV (2015) Long-term treatment effects of lumbar arthrodeses in degenerative disk disease: systematic review with meta-analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(9):E493–E521CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses
Authors
Fan Ding
Zhiwei Jia
Zhigang Zhao
Lin Xie
Xinfeng Gao
Dezhang Ma
Ming Liu
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4714-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

European Spine Journal 3/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws: feasibility and accuracy

Original Article

Radiographic evaluation of indirect decompression of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerated lumbar spondylolisthesis

Original Article

Outcome of L5 radiculopathy after reduction and instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of high-grade L5–S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring

Original Article

In vitro analysis of circumferential joint replacement, including bilateral facet joint replacement with lateral lumber disc prosthesis: a parametric investigation of disc sizing

Original Article

Does continuous wound infiltration enhance baseline intravenous multimodal analgesia after posterior spinal fusion surgery? A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

Original Article

Radiographic measurement for transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic approach (PELD)