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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 7/2020

Open Access 01-07-2020 | Pseudarthrosis | Original Article

Long-term clinical outcome of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements

Authors: J. Kitzen, T. F. G. Vercoulen, S. M. J. van Kuijk, M. G. M. Schotanus, N. P. Kort, L. W. van Rhijn, P. C. P. H. Willems

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 7/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the long-term clinical results and complications of two revision strategies for patients with failed total disc replacements (TDRs).

Methods

In 19 patients, the TDR was removed and the intervertebral defect was filled with a femoral head bone strut graft. In addition, instrumented posterolateral fusion was performed (removal group). In 36 patients, only a posterolateral instrumented fusion was performed (fusion group). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were completed pre- and post-revision surgery. Intra- and post-operative complications of both revision strategies were assessed.

Results

The median follow-up was 12.3 years (range 5.3–24.3). In both the removal and fusion groups, a similar (p = 0.515 and p = 0419, respectively) but significant decrease in VAS (p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and ODI score (p = 0.033 and p = 0.013, respectively) at post-revision surgery compared to pre-revision surgery was seen. A clinically relevant improvement in VAS and ODI score was found in 62.5% and 43.8% in the removal group and in 43.5% and 39.1% in the fusion group (p = 0.242 and p = 0.773, respectively). Removal of the TDR was associated with substantial intra-operative complications such as major vessel bleeding and ureter lesion. The percentage of late re-operations for complications such as pseudarthrosis were comparable for both revision strategies.

Conclusions

Revision of a failed TDR is clinically beneficial in about half of the patients. No clear benefits for additional TDR removal as compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion alone could be identified. In particular, when considering the substantial risks and complications, great caution is warranted with removal of the TDR.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Berg S et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18(10):1512–1519CrossRef
2.
Blumenthal S 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):1565–1575 (discussion E387–91) CrossRef
3.
Gornet MF 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(25):E1600–E1611CrossRef
4.
Guyer RD 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(5):374–386CrossRef
5.
Zigler J 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(11):1155–1162 (discussion 1163) CrossRef
6.
Zigler JE, Glenn J, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 17(6):504–511CrossRef
7.
Skold C, Tropp H, Berg S (2013) Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 22(10):2288–2295CrossRef
8.
Gillet P (2003) The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):338–345CrossRef
9.
Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13(3):375–377CrossRef
10.
van den Eerenbeemt KD et al (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19(8):1262–1280CrossRef
11.
Jacobs W et al (2012) Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD008326
12.
Siepe CJ et al (2010) The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, X-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(22):1991–2003CrossRef
13.
Cunningham BW et al (2009) Revision strategies for single- and two-level total disc arthroplasty procedures: A biomechanical perspective. Spine J 9(9):735–743CrossRef
14.
de Maat GH et al (2009) Removal of the Charite lumbar artificial disc prosthesis: surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(5):334–339CrossRef
15.
Punt I et al (2012) Clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements. Eur Spine J 21(12):2558–2564CrossRef
16.
Punt IM et al (2008) Complications and reoperations of the SB Charite lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 17(1):36–43CrossRef
17.
Lu SB et al (2015) An 11-year minimum follow-up of the Charite III lumbar disc replacement for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 24(9):2056–2064CrossRef
18.
Siepe CJ 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(8):1417–1431CrossRef
19.
Guyer RD et al (2016) Five-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial comparing two lumbar total disc replacements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(1):3–8CrossRef
20.
Malham GM, Parker RM (2017) Early experience with lateral lumbar total disc replacement: utility, complications and revision strategies. J Clin Neurosci 39:176–183CrossRef
21.
Alahmadi H, Deutsch H (2014) Outcome of salvage lumbar fusion after lumbar arthroplasty. Asian Spine J 8(1):13–18CrossRef
22.
Leary SP et al (2007) Revision and explantation strategies involving the CHARITE lumbar artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(9):1001–1011CrossRef
23.
McAfee PC et al (2006) Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(11):1217–1226CrossRef
24.
McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(2):99–107CrossRef
25.
Park HJ et al (2018) Radiological and clinical long-term results of heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 18(5):762–768CrossRef
26.
Punt IM et al (2009) Periprosthetic tissue reactions observed at revision of total intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials 30(11):2079–2084CrossRef
27.
Veruva SY et al (2017) Periprosthetic UHMWPE wear debris induces inflammation, vascularization, and innervation after total disc replacement in the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(5):1369–1381CrossRef
28.
Wright TM (2017) CORR insights((R)): periprosthetic UHMWPE wear debris induces inflammation, vascularization, and innervation after total disc replacement in the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(5):1382–1385CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Long-term clinical outcome of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements
Authors
J. Kitzen
T. F. G. Vercoulen
S. M. J. van Kuijk
M. G. M. Schotanus
N. P. Kort
L. W. van Rhijn
P. C. P. H. Willems
Publication date
01-07-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Pseudarthrosis
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06184-x

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

European Spine Journal 7/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Preoperative lumbar epidural steroid injections administered within 6 weeks of microdiscectomy are associated with increased rates of reoperation

Author's reply

Answer to the letter to the editor of V. Kumar et al. concerning “influence of body position and axial load on spinal stiffness in healthy young adults” by Häusler M, et al. (Eur Spine J; [2020]: DOI:10.1007/S00586-019–06254-0)

Original Article

Development and temporal validation of a prognostic model for 1-year clinical outcome after decompression surgery for lumbar disc herniation

Original Article

Does the increased motion probing gradient directional diffusion tensor imaging of lumbar nerves using multi-band SENSE improve the visualization and accuracy of FA values?

Original Article

Immuno-stimulatory capacity of decorin in the rat tail intervertebral disc and the mechanical consequence of resultant inflammation

Original Article

Spontaneous regression of calcified thoracic herniations: Can Hounsfield-units radiodensity have a predictive value?