Impact of previous lumbar spine surgery on the outcome of lumbar total disc replacement: analysis of prospective 5-year follow-up study data.

PURPOSE: It is sometimes anticipated that patients with prior spine surgery will have a compromised outcome from future procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare TDR outcomes in patients with prior lumbar spine surgery to those with no previous surgery. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was performed on 5-year follow-up data collected prospectively in the multi-centre FDA-regulated trial for the activL® Artificial Disc which involved 376 patients treated for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration. Clinical outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, SF-36, adverse events, and re-operations. Radiographic outcomes included flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) and translation of the operated segment. Patients were divided into two groups: Prior Lumbar Surgery (PLS, n = 92) and No Prior Lumbar Surgery (NPLS, n = 284). RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar in the two groups. ODI, VAS, and SF-36 Physical Component Scale scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) from baseline in both groups with improvements maintained through 5-year post-TDR with no significant differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of serious device-related events, procedure-related events, or re-operations. While ROM was significantly less prior to TDR surgery in the PLS group, there was no significant difference in ROM at post-operative points. CONCLUSION: Prior lumbar spine surgery was not associated with compromised outcomes following TDR. These results are in line with reports from earlier studies with shorter follow-up, finding that non-destabilizing prior surgery is not a contra-indication for TDR provided that selection criteria are met. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why spine surgeons subspecializing in total disc replacement (TDR) performed lumbar fusion rather than TDR. METHODS: The study was based on a consecutive series of 515 patients undergoing lumbar TDR or fusion during a 5-year period by three surgeons specializing in TDR. For each fusion patient, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded. RESULTS: TDR was performed in 65.4% (n = 337) of patients and the remaining 34.6% (n = 178) underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF ± posterior instrumentation). Of the 178 fusion patients, the most common reason for fusion was combined factors related to severe degenerative changes (n = 59, 11.5% of the study population). The second most common reason was > Grade 1 spondylolisthesis (n = 32, 6.2%), followed by insurance non-coverage (n = 24, 4.7%), and osteopenia/osteoporosis (n = 13, 2.5%). Fusion patients were significantly older than TDR patients (52.5 vs. 41.6 years; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to gender (41.2% female vs. 43.8% female, p > 0.05) or the percentage of patients with single-level surgery (61.2% vs. 56.7%, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The most common reason for not performing lumbar TDR was related to anatomic factors that may compromise stability of the operated segment and/or TDR functionality. The older age of fusion patients may be related to these factors. This study found that many patients are appropriate candidates for lumbar TDR. However, even among TDR subspecialists, fusion is preferred when there are factors that cannot be addressed with TDR and/or may compromise implant functionality.

Analysis of re-operations after cervical total disc replacement in a consecutive series of 535 patients receiving the ProDisc-C device.

INTRODUCTION: One important factor in evaluating the safety of an implant is the rate of subsequent surgery and the reasons for surgery, particularly those that are related to possible problems with the implant. The purpose of this study was to determine the overall re-operation rate (including revisions, removals, device-related, procedure-related, adjacent segment, and others) for a large consecutive series of cervical TDR patients beginning with the first case experience, using a single device at a single institution. METHODS: Surgery records were reviewed to identify cervical TDR patients and those who underwent subsequent surgery. Cervical TDR cases involving ProDisc-C were identified, beginning with the first case performed in 2003 at a multisite spine specialty centre. Only patients who were at least 2 years post-operative were included, producing a consecutive series of 535 patients. There were 115 hybrids in the series (TDR at one level and fusion at an adjacent segment). Data collected included general demographics and level(s) operated. A surgery log through 12-31-18 was reviewed to identify re-operations occurring in the TDR patients. For each re-operation, the reason, duration from index surgery, and procedure were recorded. The mean duration from the index surgery to the search of the surgery log for re-operations was 78.3 months, range 24 to 181 months. RESULTS: Re-operation occurred in 30 patients (5.6%). These included: 3 TDR removals and revision to anterior discectomy and fusion (1 for migration, 1 for subsidence, and 1 for spondylosis), 1 TDR repositioning, 21 secondary surgeries for adjacent segment degeneration (5 of which were adjacent to fusion levels in hybrid procedures), 1 wound infection, 1 hematoma, and 2 received stimulators for pain control. There were no re- operations for device failure. In cases of re-operation for adjacent segment degeneration, the mean duration between the index surgery and re-operation was 47.3 months. CONCLUSION: The re-operation rate was 5.6%. No surgeries were performed for device failure. These results support the safety of the TDR device.

In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with cervical spine symptoms?

PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why total disc replacement (TDR) specialty surgeons performed anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) rather than TDR. METHODS: A consecutive series of 464 patients undergoing cervical spine surgery during a 5-year period by three TDR specialty surgeons was reviewed. For each ACDF, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded. RESULTS: TDR was performed in 76.7% of patients (n = 356) and ACDF in 23.3% (n = 108). The most common reason for ACDF versus TDR was anatomical (conditions that may not be adequately addressed with TDR and/or may interfere with device function), which occurred in 64 of 464 patients (13.79%). The second most common reason was insurance (denial/lack of coverage n = 17, 3.23%), and deformity/kyphosis not addressable with TDR was noted in 13 (2.80%). Pseudoarthrosis repair led to ACDF in three patients (0.65%), two did not receive TDR due to osteoporosis (0.43%), and in two others (0.43%) ACDF was undertaken due to high risk of heterotopic ossification. There was one case (0.22%) each of: nickel allergy, trauma with posterior element fracture, TDR removal, multiple prior cervical spine surgeries, concern about artifact on future imaging studies, benign osteoblastic bone, and limitation to adequate surgical approach for TDR. ACDF patients' mean age was significantly greater than TDR patients' (55.3 vs. 46.7 years; p < 0.01). TDR group had significantly more single-level procedures than ACDF (60.8% vs. 43.5%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The most common reason for ACDF versus TDR was anatomy that may compromise segmental stability and/or TDR functionality. Older age and greater number of operated levels may be related to anatomical factors, primarily significant osteophytes and severely degenerated facets. These factors, as well as deformity/kyphosis, are more common in older patients and require multi-level treatment. This study found that many patients are good cervical TDR candidates; however, even among TDR specialists, ACDF may be preferred where it is prudent to not take undue risks. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Clinical Outcome of Lumbar Hybrid Surgery in a Consecutive Series of Patients with Long-term Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study combined with attempted prospective patient contact to collect current data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing lumbar hybrid surgery (total disc replacement (TDR) at one level and fusion at an adjacent level. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration are affected at more than one level. Lumbar TDR was introduced as a fusion alternative; however, some disc levels are not amenable to TDR and fusion is preferable at such levels. Hybrid surgery was introduced as an option to fusing multiple levels. METHODS: A consecutive series of 305 patients undergoing lumbar hybrid surgery was identified beginning with the first case experience in 2005. Operative and clinical outcome data including visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and re-operations were collected. The mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. RESULTS: There were statistically significant improvements (P<0.01) in the mean values of all three clinical outcome measures: VAS back pain scores improved from 6.7 to 3.3; leg pain improved from 4.3 to 2.0; and ODI scores improved from 45.5 to 24.6. There were no significant differences in pain and function scores for patients with minimum 10-year follow-up vs. those with shorter follow-up duration. Re-operation occurred in 16.1% of patients, many of which involved removal of posterior instrumentation at the fusion level (6.2% of study group, 38.8% of re-operations). Re-operation involving the TDR level occurred in 9 patients (2.9%), only 3 of which (1.0%) involved TDR removal/revision. CONCLUSION: This study supports that for many patients with multilevel symptomatic disc degeneration, hybrid surgery is a viable surgical option. Significant improvements were demonstrated in pain and function scores with no diminished improvement in scores among patients with more than 10-year follow-up.

Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Device Removals and Revisions Performed During a 20-Year Experience with 2141 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study with prospective patient contact attempted to collect current data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to investigate the incidence and reasons for lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) removal or revision. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A concern regarding lumbar TDR was safety, particularly the need for device removal or revision. This may be particularly important considering removal/revision requires repeat anterior exposure with an increased risk of vascular injury. METHODS: Data were collected for a series of 2141 lumbar TDR patients, beginning with the first case experience in 2000. The mean follow-up was 78.6 months. For each case of device removal/revision, the reason, duration from index surgery, and procedure performed were recorded. RESULTS: Of 2141 patients, 27 (1.26%) underwent TDR removal or revision. Device removal was performed in 24 patients (1.12%), while three patients underwent revision (0.14%). Of the 24 removals, 12 were due to migration and/or loosening, three developed problems post-trauma, two developed lymphocytic reaction to device materials, two had ongoing pain, and there was one case of each: TDR was too large, vertebral body fracture (osteoporosis), lytic lesion, device subsidence and facet arthrosis, and infection seeded from a chest infection 146 months post-TDR. The three revisions were for Core repositioning (technique error), device repositioning after displacement, and core replacement due to wear/failure. With respect to timing, 37.0% of removals/revisions occurred within one-month postimplantation. Of note, 40.7% of removals/revisions occurred in the first 25 TDR cases performed by individual surgeons. There was one significant vascular complication occurring in a patient whose TDR was removed due to trauma. This was also the only patient among 258 with ≥15-year follow-up who underwent removal/revision. CONCLUSION: In this large consecutive series, 1.26% of TDRs were removed/revised. The low rate over a 20 year period supports the safety of these devices.

Removals and Revisions of Cervical Total Disc Replacement Devices in a Consecutive Series of 1,626 Patients Beginning with the First Case Experience in 2003.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the rate of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) device removal or revision. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical TDR has gained acceptance as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in appropriately selected patients. There have been concerns over device safety, one measure of which is subsequent surgery related to device problems. METHODS: A consecutive series of 1,626 cervical TDR patients from 2003 to June 2021 were included, consisting of TDRs up to 3 levels and hybrids (TDR and fusion). TDR removal or revision surgeries and reasons for these surgeries, procedures performed, and duration from index procedure were recorded. Data were analyzed to determine removal/revision rate and factors possibly related to these events. RESULTS: There were 24 removals/revisions (1.48%) in the 1,626 patients. Removal was performed in 23 cases (1.41%) and revision in 1 (0.06%). Among removal cases, ACDF was performed in 18 and TDR was replaced with another TDR in 5. Removals with fusion included 5 cases of osteolysis with/without C. acnes, 4 device displacement/migration, 4 posterior spinal pathology, and one for each of the following: metal allergy, approach-related complications, malpositioning, subsidence, and hypermobility. The revision involved TDR repositioning 3 days after index surgery. There were 66 patients for whom minimum of 10year follow-up was confirmed, and none had removal/revision surgery 10 or more years after index surgery. There was no relationship between occurrence of removal/revision and age, gender, body mass index, or physician experience (learning curve). The removal/revision rate was significantly higher in FDA trials vs. post-approval (4.1% vs. 1.3%, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: In this large consecutive series of patients, 1.48% of cervical TDRs were removed/revised. The low rate of removals/revisions over a long period of time provides support for the devices' safety.

Prosthesis design and likelihood of achieving physiological range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty: analysis of range of motion data from 1,173 patients from 7 IDE clinical trials.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The functional goals of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are to restore enough range of motion (ROM) to reduce the risk of accelerated adjacent segment degeneration but limit excessive motion to maintain a biomechanically stable index segment. This motion-range is termed the "Physiological mobility range." Clinical studies report postoperative ROM averaged over all study subjects but they do not report what proportion of reconstructed segments yield ROM in the Physiological mobility range following CDA surgery. PURPOSE: To calculate the proportion of reconstructed segments that yield flexion-extension ROM (FE-ROM) in the Physiological mobility range (defined as 5°-16°) by analyzing the 24-month postoperative data reported by clinical trials of various cervical disc prostheses. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Analysis of 24-month postoperative FE-ROM data from clinical trials. PATIENT SAMPLE: Data from 1,173 patients from single-level disc replacement clinical trials of 7 cervical disc prostheses. OUTCOME MEASURES: 24-month postoperative index-level FE-ROM. METHODS: The FE-ROM histograms reported in Food and Drug Administration-Investigational Device Exemption (FDA-IDE) submissions and available for this analysis were used to calculate the frequencies of implanted levels with postoperative FE-ROM in the following motion-ranges: Hypomobile (0°-4°), Physiological (5°-16°), and Hypermobile (≥17°). The ROM histograms also allowed calculation of the average ROM of implanted segments in each of the 3 motion-ranges. RESULTS: Only 762 of 1,173 patients (implanted levels) yielded 24-month postCDA FE-ROM in the physiological mobility range (5°-16°). The proportions ranged from 60% to 79% across the 7 disc-prostheses, with an average of 65.0%±6.2%. Three-hundred and two (302) of 1,173 implanted levels yielded ROM in the 0°-4° range. The proportions ranged from 15% to 38% with an average of 25.7%±8.9%. One-hundred and nine (109) of 1,173 implanted levels yielded ROM of ≥17° with a range of 2%-21% and an average proportion of 9.3%±7.9%. The prosthesis with built-in stiffness due to its nucleus-annulus design yielded the highest proportion (103/131, 79%) of implanted segments in the physiological mobility range, compared to the cohort average of 65% (p<.01). Sixty-five of the 350 (18.6%) discs implanted with the 2 mobile-core designs in this cohort yielded ROM≥17° as compared to the cohort average of 9.3% (109/1,173) (p<.05). At 2-year postCDA, the "hypomobile" segments moved on average 2.4±1.2°, those in the "physiological-mobility" group moved 9.4±3.2°, and the hypermobile segments moved 19.6±2.6°. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis design significantly influenced the likelihood of achieving FE-ROM in the physiological mobility range, while avoiding hypomobility or hypermobility (p<.01). Postoperative ROM averaged over all study subjects provides incomplete information about the prosthesis performance - it does not tell us how many implanted segments achieve physiological mobility and how many end up with hypomobility or hypermobility. We conclude that the proportion of index levels achieving postCDA motions in the physiological mobility range (5°-16°) is a more useful outcome measure for future clinical trials.

Evaluation of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed Using a Stand-Alone, Integrated Fusion Cage.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been performed for many years. Often, posterior supplemental fixation has been used to provide additional stability to the operated segment. Interbody implants have evolved to incorporate unique designs, polyetheretherketone, integrated screws, and surface texture. With these changes, the need for supplemental posterior fixation has been debated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of stand-alone ALIF. METHODS: A surgery log was reviewed to identify the consecutive series of 58 patients undergoing ALIF using a STALIF stand-alone cage from March 2011 (first case) to December 2018 (minimum 24 months postoperative) with a mean follow-up of 30.6 months. All patients were treated for symptomatic degenerative conditions. Charts were reviewed to collect general patient information, operative data, and patient-reported outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scales (VAS) separately assessing back pain and leg pain, and re-operations. For patients who were not seen recently in clinic for follow-up, current outcome data were collected through mailings. RESULTS: The mean operative blood loss was 52.1 mL. There was a statistically significant improvement in mean ODI scores from 41.7 preoperatively to 21.0 at follow-up (P < 0.01). There was also significant improvement (P < 0.01) in VAS back pain (6.0-2.5) and leg pain (4.1-1.3). Subsequent surgery was performed on 9 patients. Reasons for re-operation were pseudoarthrosis (n = 3), progressive cage subsidence (n = 1), foraminal stenosis at the index level (n = 1), metal allergy reaction (n = 2), adjacent segment degeneration (n = 1), and ongoing pain (n = 1). There were no cases of device failure, vertebral body fracture, or screws backing out of the implant. DISCUSSION: Stand-alone ALIF was associated with statistically significant improvements in ODI scores, back pain, and leg pain. The re-operation rate for clear pseudoarthrosis or cage subsidence was 6.8%. These results support that stand-alone ALIF produces good outcomes in patients treated for symptomatic disc degeneration while avoiding the use of posterior fixation and its complication risk and cost. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study support that stand-alone ALIF is a viable procedure for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration unresponsive in patients who have failed nonoperative care and who do not have specific indications for supplemental posterior instrumentation.

Segmental Motion of Cervical Arthroplasty Leads to Decreased Adjacent-Level Degeneration: Analysis of the 7-Year Postoperative Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artificial disc replacement (C-ADR) has become a common and accepted surgical treatment for many patients with cervical disc degeneration/herniation and radiculopathy who have failed nonoperative treatment. Midterm follow-up studies of the original investigational device exemption trials comparing C-ADR to traditional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) have revealed C-ADR patients have less adjacent-level disease and fewer reoperations at 5 to 7 years. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of radiographic adjacent-level disease (R-ALD) with the amount of index-level segmental range of motion (ROM) in C-ADR patients using the long-term follow-up data from the ProDisc-C investigational device exemption trial. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a 1:1 randomized controlled trial. The initial previously described Food and Drug Administration-approved 2-year study was extended, and consenting patients in the original study were followed at annual intervals up to 7 years. Logistic regression was used to assess any progression in adjacent-level disease (ALD). Ordinal logistic regression was also used to assess the relationship between any progressive R-ALD and final flexion extension (F/E) ROM in C-ADR patients. Spearman's rank-order correlation was used when R-ALD was kept as an ordinal variable to assess the same relationship. RESULTS: At the last follow-up visit, the rate of progressive R-ALD was significantly higher in ACDF patients than in C-ADR patients. When C-ADR patients were divided into 3 groups based on final F/E ROM, those with 0° to 3° (n = 19), 4° to 6° (n = 15), and 7° (n = 42) of segmental motion at the index procedure level, the rate of progressive R-ALD trended significantly with final ROM (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: C-ADR leads to a significant decrease in R-ALD compared to ACDF. The difference in R-ALD is related to the preservation of motion at the index level and resultant preservation of kinematics and forces across the adjacent disc space.

Predictors of long-term clinical outcomes in adult patients after lumbar total disc replacement: development and validation of a prediction model.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term outcomes of single-level lumbar arthroplasty are understood to be very good, with the most recent Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial showing a < 5% reoperation rate at the close of the 7-year study. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine whether specific patients from the activL IDE data set had better outcomes than the mean good outcome of the IDE trial, as well as to identify contributing factors that could be optimized in real-world use. METHODS: Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were developed using the randomized patient set (n = 283) from the activL trial and used to identify predictive factors and to derive risk equations. The models were internally validated using the randomized patient set and externally validated using the nonrandomized patient set (n = 52) from the activL trial. Predictive power was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Two factors were significantly associated with achievement of better than the mean outcomes at 7 years. Randomization to receive the activL device was positively associated with better than the mean visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, whereas preoperative narcotics use was negatively associated with better than the mean ODI score. Preoperative narcotics use was also negatively associated with return to unrestricted full-time work. Other preoperative factors associated with positive outcomes included unrestricted full-time work, working manual labor after index back injury, and decreasing disc height. Older age, greater VAS-leg pain score, greater ODI score, female sex, and working manual labor before back injury were identified as preoperative factors associated with negative outcomes. Preoperative BMI, VAS-back pain score, back pain duration ≥ 1 year, SF-36 physical component summary score, and recreational activity had no effect on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar total disc replacement for symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease is a well-established option for improving long-term patient outcomes. Discontinuing narcotics use may further improve patient outcomes, as this analysis identified associations between no preoperative narcotics use and better ODI score relative to the mean score of the activL trial at 7 years and increased likelihood of return to work within 7 years. Other preoperative factors that may further improve outcomes included unrestricted full-time work, working manual labor despite back injury, sedentary work status before back injury, and randomization to receive the activL device. Tailoring patient care before total disc replacement may further improve patient outcomes.

Final Long-Term Reporting from a Randomized Controlled IDE Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: 7-Year Results.

BACKGROUND: This study compared 7-year safety and efficacy outcomes of activL and ProDisc-L lumbar total disc replacements in patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The objectives are to report 7-year outcomes of the trial, evaluate the outcomes for patients lost to follow-up, and determine whether early outcomes predict long-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption study. Eligible patients with symptomatic, single-level lumbar DDD had failed ≥6 months of nonsurgical management. Patients (N = 283) were randomized to receive activL (n = 218) or ProDisc-L (n = 65). At 7 years, data were available from 206 patients (activL, 160; ProDisc-L, 46). Logistic regression models were fit to predict 7-year outcomes for patients lost to follow-up after 2 years. RESULTS: At 7 years, the activL group was noninferior to the ProDisc-L group on the primary composite endpoint (P = .0369). Both groups showed significant reductions in back/leg pain severity and improvements in disability index and quality-of-life relative to baseline (P < .0001). In both groups, opioid use was significantly reduced at 7 years (0%) relative to baseline (P < .01), and the overall reoperation rates were low (4.6%). activL patients showed a significantly better range of motion (ROM) for flexion-extension rotation than ProDisc-L patients (P = .0334). A significantly higher proportion of activL patients did not report serious adverse events (activL, 62%; ProDisc-L, 43%; P = .011). Predictive modeling indicated that >70% of patients (depending on outcome) lost to follow-up after 2 years would show clinically significant improvement at 7 years if improvements were achieved at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of activL and ProDisc-L are maintained after 7 years, with significant improvements from baseline observed in pain, function, and opioid use. activL is more effective at preserving ROM than ProDisc-L and has a more favorable safety profile. Improvements in other primary and secondary outcomes were similar between both disc designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing M6-C compressible six degrees of freedom cervical disc with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy: 2-year results of an FDA investigational device exemption study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Various designs of total disc replacement (TDR) devices have been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with favorable outcomes in FDA-approved investigational device exemption trials. The design of M6-C with a compressible viscoelastic nuclear core and an annular structure is substantially different than prior designs and has previously demonstrated favorable kinematics and clinical outcomes in small case series. PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the novel M6-C compressible artificial cervical disc compared with ACDF for subjects with single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, concurrently and historically controlled, FDA-approved investigational device exemption clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Subjects with one-level symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy were enrolled and assigned to receive M6-C or ACDF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and function (Neck Disability Index, VAS), quality of life (SF-36), safety, neurologic, and radiographic assessments of motion (both flexion extension and lateral bending) were performed. The primary clinical endpoint was composite clinical success (CCS) at 24 months. METHODS: Using propensity score subclassification to control for selection bias, 160 M6-C subjects were compared to a matched subset of 189 ACDF controls (46 concurrent and 143 historical controls). RESULTS: Both ACDF and M6-C subjects reported significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at all time points over baseline. Overall SF-36 Physical Component Score and neck and arm pain scores were significantly improved for M6-C as compared to ACDF treatment. CCS and mean Neck Disability Index improvements were similar between M6-C and ACDF. Correspondingly, there were significantly fewer subjects that utilized pain medication or opioids following M6-C treatment at 24 months relative to baseline. Range of motion was maintained in subjects treated with M6-C. Subsequent surgical interventions, dysphagia rates, and serious adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: M6-C treatment demonstrated both safety and effectiveness for the treatment of degenerative cervical radiculopathy. Treatment with M6-C demonstrated noninferiority for the primary endpoint, indicating a similar ability to achieve CCS at 24 months. However, for the secondary endpoints, M6-C subjects demonstrated significantly improved pain and function compared to ACDF subjects, while maintaining range of motion, improving quality of life, and decreasing analgesic and opioid usage at 2 years postoperatively relative to baseline.

Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale and History.

Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that cervical fusion results in increased motion and intradiscal pressures at adjacent levels. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is an alternative treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy resulting from degenerative disc disease. By maintaining segmental motion, surgeons hope to avoid some of the primary drawbacks of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), such as pseudoarthrosis and adjacent segment disease. First introduced in the 1960s, CDA has evolved over the years with changes to implant geometry and materials. Early devices produced suboptimal outcomes, but more recent generations of implants have shown long-term outcomes rivaling or even surpassing those of ACDF. In this article, the rationale for CDA as well as the history of such devices is reviewed.

Screw-Related Complications After Instrumentation of the Osteoporotic Spine: A Systematic Literature Review With Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review with meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is common in elderly patients, who frequently suffer from spinal fractures or degenerative diseases and often require surgical treatment with spinal instrumentation. Diminished bone quality impairs primary screw purchase, which may lead to loosening and its sequelae, in the worst case, revision surgery. Information about the incidence of spinal instrumentation-related complications in osteoporotic patients is currently limited to individual reports. We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of quantifying the incidence of screw loosening in osteoporotic spines. METHODS: Publications on spinal instrumentation of osteoporotic patients reporting screw-related complications were identified in 3 databases. Data on screw loosening and other local complications was collected. Pooled risks of experiencing such complications were estimated with random effects models. Risk of bias in the individual studies was assessed with an adapted McHarm Scale. RESULTS: From 1831 initial matches, 32 were eligible and 19 reported screw loosening rates. Studies were heterogeneous concerning procedures performed and risk of bias. Screw loosening incidences were variable with a pooled risk of 22.5% (95% CI 10.8%-36.6%, 95% prediction interval [PI] 0%-81.2%) in reports on nonaugmented screws and 2.2% (95% CI 0.0%-7.2%, 95% PI 0%-25.1%) in reports on augmented screws. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that screw loosening incidences may be considerably higher in osteoporotic spines than with normal bone mineral density. Screw augmentation may reduce loosening rates; however, this requires confirmation through clinical studies. Standardized reporting of prespecified complications should be enforced by publishers.

Postoperative Care Pathways Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Results of a Modified Delphi Approach.

STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Subject matter experts were invited to participate as the expert panel. Best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" after a series of statements during several rounds until either consensus could be obtained or the practice method was deemed unable to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVE: Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is acknowledged as an alternative to spinal fusion in appropriately selected patients. There is a lack of unanimity on the appropriate postoperative patient protocols and rehabilitation expectations for the procedure. The long-term viability of Lumbar TDR, further adoption in the community setting and specific patient outcomes are contingent on the existence of appropriate postoperative recovery programs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently there are no established methods for postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Establishing a postoperative clinical pathway algorithm may improve patient outcomes with respect to lumbar TDR. METHOD: A lumbar TDR expert panel of 22 spine surgeons employed a modified Delphi method to drive consensus on postoperative care following single-level Lumbar TDR. The panel first reviewed literature and guidelines relevant to postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Panel members considered 21 survey questions intended to determine "standard-practice" postoperative care recommendations for patients who have undergone lumbar TDR for the initial recovery phase (0-4 wk) and rehabilitation (4-20 wk). Each panel member participated in a round of anonymous voting followed by a group discussion. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or higher among the respondents. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved in 11 of the 21 survey questions. There was a high degree of consensus around the key goals for both the initial recovery and rehabilitation phases, ceased use of narcotics for pain management by 4 weeks postoperative, unrestricted walking immediately following surgery, timelines for physical therapy (within 2-4 wk) and return to work based on level of activity (as early as 1 wk postoperative). Lack of agreement included the use of back bracing and timing of postoperative visits. Generally, panel members felt that patient expectations regarding return to function were different following lumbar TDR versus fusion and warrant further study. CONCLUSION: Surgeon and patient alignment around postoperative expectations may significantly affect the long-term results of lumbar TDR. This surgeon consensus study found agreement for immediate postoperative ambulation, rapid reduction in opioids within the first month, and early return to work. When expectations are appropriately set with patients preoperatively, both provider and patient have shared goals in the return-to-function process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Comparison of therapies in lumbar degenerative disc disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of total disc replacement, lumbar fusion, and conservative care in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). MATERIALS & METHODS: A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative impact of lumbar DDD therapies on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain score, patient satisfaction, employment status, and reoperation. Odds ratios or mean differences and 95% credible intervals were reported. RESULTS: Six studies were included (1417 participants). Overall, the activL total disc replacement device had the most favorable results for ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction. Results for employment status and reoperation were similar across therapies. CONCLUSION: activL substantially improves ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with other therapies for single-level lumbar DDD.

Five-Year Reoperation Rates of 2-Level Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Versus Fusion: Results of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Long-term analysis of prospective randomized clinical trial data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) has been found to have equivalent or superior clinical outcomes compared with fusion and decreased radiographic incidence of adjacent level degeneration in single-level cases. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this particular analysis was to determine the incidence and risk factors for secondary surgery in patients treated with TDR or circumferential fusion at 2 contiguous levels of the lumbar spine. METHODS: A total of 229 patients were treated and randomized to receive either TDR or circumferential fusion to treat degenerative disk disease at 2 contiguous levels between L3 and S1 (TDR, n=161; fusion, n=68). RESULTS: Overall, at final 5-year follow-up, 9.6% of subjects underwent a secondary surgery in this study. The overall rate of adjacent segment disease was 3.5% (8/229). At 5 years, the percentage of subjects undergoing secondary surgeries was significantly lower in the TDR group versus fusion (5.6% vs. 19.1%, P=0.0027).Most secondary surgeries (65%, 17/26) occurred at the index levels. Index level secondary surgeries were most common in the fusion cohort (16.2%, 11/68 subjects) versus TDR (3.1%, 5/161 subjects, P=0.0009). There no statistically significant difference in the adjacent level reoperation rate between TDR (2.5%, 4/161) and fusion (5.9%, 4/68). The most common reason for index levels reoperation was instrumentation removal (n=9). Excluding the instrumentation removals, there was not a significant difference between the treatments in index level reoperations or in reoperations overall. CONCLUSIONS: There were significantly fewer reoperations in TDR patients compared with fusion patients. However, most of the secondary surgeries were instrumentation removal in the fusion cohort. Discounting the instrumentation removals, there was no significant difference in reoperations between TDR and fusion. These results are indicative that lumbar TDR is noninferior to fusion.

Comparison of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With Surgical Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 5-Year Outcomes From Randomized Controlled Trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of total disc replacement (TDR) compared with fusion in patients with functionally disabling chronic low back pain due to single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 5 years. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes at 5 years for TDR compared with fusion in patients with single-level lumbar DDD. Outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain scores, reoperations, and patient satisfaction. All analyses were conducted using a random-effects model; analyses were reported as relative risk (RR) ratios and mean differences (MDs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted for different outcome definitions, high loss to follow-up, and high heterogeneity. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 4 studies. TDR patients had a significantly greater likelihood of ODI success (RR 1.0912; 95% CI 1.0004, 1.1903) and patient satisfaction (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03, 1.24) and a significantly lower risk of reoperation (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.35, 0.77) than fusion patients. There was no association with improvement in back pain scores whether patients received TDR or fusion (MD -2.79; 95% CI -8.09, 2.51). Most results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Results for ODI success and patient satisfaction were sensitive to different outcome definitions but remained in favor of TDR. CONCLUSIONS: TDR is an effective alternative to fusion for lumbar DDD. It offers several clinical advantages over the longer term that can benefit the patient and reduce health care burden, without additional safety consequences.