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

Open Access 01-09-2015 | Original Article

Maverick total disc replacement in a real-world patient population: a prospective, multicentre, observational study

Authors: Richard Assaker, Karsten Ritter-Lang, Dominique Vardon, Stéphane Litrico, Stéphane Fuentes, Michael Putzier, Jörg Franke, Peter Jarzem, Pierre Guigui, Gérard Nakach, Jean-Charles Le Huec

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Controlled trials have shown that total disc replacement (TDR) can provide pain and disability relief to patients with degenerative disc disease; however, whether these outcomes can also be achieved for patients treated in normal surgical practice has not been well documented.

Methods

This prospective, international study observed changes in disability and back pain in 134 patients who were implanted with Maverick TDR within the framework of routine clinical practice and followed for 2 years post-surgery. Primary and secondary outcomes were the differences from baseline to 6 months post-surgery in the means of the Oswestry Disability Index and the change in back pain intensity assessed on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, respectively. Mean patient age at surgery was 43 years, but ranged up to 65 years.

Results

One hundred twenty-three patients had an implant at one level, 10 patients at two levels, and one patient at three levels. Statistically significant improvements in mean disability (−25.4) and low back pain intensity (−4.0) scores were observed at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.0001 for both) in the hands of experienced surgeons (>10 TDRs per centre). During the study, 56 patients (42 %) experienced a complication or adverse event.

Conclusions

This is the first international observational study to report outcomes of TDR in real-world clinical settings. We showed statistically significant improvements in disability and pain scores at 6 months following Maverick TDR, which were maintained for 2 years alongside an acceptable rate of perioperative complications. The safety and tolerability shown in this observational study were comparable to those from controlled trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: 2-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36(3):315–322CrossRefPubMed Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y et al (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: 2-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36(3):315–322CrossRefPubMed
2.
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 (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1565–1575CrossRef 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(14):1565–1575CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: 3-year results for different indications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(17):1923–1932CrossRef Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: 3-year results for different indications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(17):1923–1932CrossRef
4.
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 4-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78(3–4):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 4-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 78(3–4):355–363CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1(2):143–154CrossRefPubMed Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1(2):143–154CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, Girardi FP, Lim MR, Cammisa FP Jr (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6(3):242–247CrossRefPubMed Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, Girardi FP, Lim MR, Cammisa FP Jr (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6(3):242–247CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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 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
8.
go back to reference Mathews HH, Le Huec JC, Friesem T, Zdeblick T, Eisermann L (2004) Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick total disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):268S–275SCrossRefPubMed Mathews HH, Le Huec JC, Friesem T, Zdeblick T, Eisermann L (2004) Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick total disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):268S–275SCrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference Zweig T, Aghayev E, Melloh M, Dietrich D, Roder C (2012) Influence of preoperative leg pain and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 6):S729–S736CrossRefPubMed Zweig T, Aghayev E, Melloh M, Dietrich D, Roder C (2012) Influence of preoperative leg pain and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 6):S729–S736CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Chin KR (2007) Epidemiology of indications and contraindications to total disc replacement in an academic practice. Spine J 7(4):392–398CrossRefPubMed Chin KR (2007) Epidemiology of indications and contraindications to total disc replacement in an academic practice. Spine J 7(4):392–398CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Aghayev E, Henning J, Munting E, Diel P, Moulin P, Roder C (2012) Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries. Eur Spine J 21(8):1640–1647PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Aghayev E, Henning J, Munting E, Diel P, Moulin P, Roder C (2012) Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries. Eur Spine J 21(8):1640–1647PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8(6):968–974CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8(6):968–974CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference 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):1512–1519PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed 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):1512–1519PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Zairi F, Remacle JM, Allaoui M, Assaker R (2013) Delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by metal-on-metal total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 19(3):389–391CrossRefPubMed Zairi F, Remacle JM, Allaoui M, Assaker R (2013) Delayed hypersensitivity reaction caused by metal-on-metal total disc replacement. J Neurosurg Spine 19(3):389–391CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Harper ML, Chan FW, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ (2013) Prospective study on serum metal levels in patients with metal-on-metal lumbar disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 22(4):741–746PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Harper ML, Chan FW, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ (2013) Prospective study on serum metal levels in patients with metal-on-metal lumbar disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 22(4):741–746PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Maverick total disc replacement in a real-world patient population: a prospective, multicentre, observational study
Authors
Richard Assaker
Karsten Ritter-Lang
Dominique Vardon
Stéphane Litrico
Stéphane Fuentes
Michael Putzier
Jörg Franke
Peter Jarzem
Pierre Guigui
Gérard Nakach
Jean-Charles Le Huec
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/s00586-015-3918-x

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

European Spine Journal 9/2015 Go to the issue