Interspinous-Interbody Fusion via a Strictly Lateral Surgical Approach: A Biomechanical Stabilization Comparison to Constructs Requiring Both Lateral and Posterior Approaches.

Objective Lumbar fusion performed through lateral approaches is becoming more common. The interbody devices are generally supported by supplemental posterior fixation implanted through a posterior approach, potentially requiring a second incision and intraoperative repositioning of the patient. A minimally invasive lateral interspinous fixation device may eliminate the need for intraoperative repositioning and avoid disruption of the supraspinous ligament. The objective of this in vitrobiomechanical study was to investigate segmental multidirectional stability and maintenance of foraminal distraction of a lateral interspinous fixation device compared to commonly used pedicle screw and facet screw posterior fixation constructs when combined with lumbar interbody cages. Methods Six human cadaver lumbar spine specimens were subjected to nondestructive quasistatic loading in the following states: (1) intact; (2) interspinous fixation device alone and (3) with lateral interbody cage; (4) lateral lumbar interbody cage with bilateral pedicle screws; (5) lateral lumbar interbody cage with unilateral pedicle screws; and (6) lateral lumbar interbody cage with facet screws. Multidirectional pure bending in 1.5 Nm increments to 7.5 Nm, and 7.5 Nm flexion-extension bending with a 700 N compressive follower load were performed separately with optoelectronic segmental motion measurement. Relative angular motions of L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 functional spinal units were evaluated, and the mean instantaneous axis of rotation in the sagittal plane was calculated for the index level. Foraminal height was assessed during combined flexion-extension and compression loading for each test construct. Results All implant configurations significantly restricted flexion-extension motion compared with intact (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in flexion-extension when comparing the different posterior implants combined with lateral lumbar interbody cages. All posterior fixation devices provided comparable neuroforaminal distraction and maintained distraction during flexion and extension. Conclusions When combinedwith lateral lumbar interbody cages, the minimally invasive lateral interspinous fixation device effectively stabilized the spine and maintained neuroforaminal distraction comparable to pedicle screw constructs or facet screws. These results suggest the lateral interspinous fixation device may provide a favorable alternative to other posterior systems that require patient repositioning during surgery and involve a greater disruption of native tissues.

Relationship between the length of time off work preoperatively and clinical outcome at 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing total disc replacement or fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A recent study involving interbody fusion patients found that preoperative work status was significantly related to clinical outcome. In another study comparing the best and worst outcomes of total disc replacement, among a battery of variables analyzed, the only one that differentiated the best and worst outcome groups was the length of time off work before total disc replacement. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between the length of time off work and treatment outcome at 24-month follow-up. If such a relationship existed, a secondary study objective would be to determine if a duration of work could be identified beyond which would be associated with compromised clinical outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data were collected prospectively from randomized clinical trials comparing total disc replacement with lumbar fusion conducted at a single site. PATIENT SAMPLE: A database of 232 patients enrolled in one of two Food and Drug Administration-regulated trials comparing total disc replacement with fusion for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration was the basis of the study group. Only patients who had reached 24-month follow-up were included. The 28 patients who were not employed by choice preoperatively were not included in the analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures used were visual analog scales (VAS) assessing pain and Oswestry disability index. METHODS: The length of time off work before surgery was recorded in weeks. The mean percentage improvement between preoperative and 24-month follow-up scores were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between duration off work preoperatively and clinical outcome (p<.05). The length of time off work preoperatively was more strongly related to outcome than was surgery type, insurance type, job demand, or preoperative VAS and Oswestry scores. Further analysis of the data identified a window of approximately 0 to 13 weeks off work preoperatively that was related to significantly greater improvements on visual analog scales (VAS) and Oswestry scores after surgery compared with patients who were off work for more than 13 weeks preoperatively. Although the subgroup off work for more than 13 weeks improved significantly from their preoperative status, the improvement was not as great as in the subgroup off work for a shorter duration. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study found that patients off work for a longer duration before surgery improved significantly postoperatively, but had less favorable clinical outcomes than patients off work for a lesser duration. This study suggests a window of approximately 13 weeks off work before surgery after which clinical improvement is reduced. Implications of this finding may be that once a patient becomes unable to work for an extended period, more rigorous psychological screening may be in order as well as perhaps engaging in more rigorous rehabilitation after surgery. Further investigation is needed to determine if the 13 weeks identified in this study is applicable to other populations.

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.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The CHARITE artificial disc, a lumbar spinal arthroplasty device, was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2004 based on two-year safety and effectiveness data from a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption (IDE) study. No long-term, randomized, prospective study on the CHARITE disc or any other artificial disc has been published to date. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness at the five-year follow-up time point of lumbar total disc replacement using the CHARITE artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA) with that of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with BAK cages and iliac crest autograft, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1, unresponsive to nonoperative treatment. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized controlled trial-five-year follow-up. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety CHARITE patients and 43 BAK patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported measures: visual analog scale (VAS); validated Oswestry disability index (ODI version 1.0); Short-Form 36 Questionnaire, and patient satisfaction. Physiologic measures: radiographic range of motion, disc height, and segmental translation. Functional measures: work status. METHODS: Of the 375 subjects enrolled in the CHARITE IDE trial, 277 were eligible for the five-year study and 160 patients thereof completed the five-year follow-up. The completers included 133 randomized patients. Overall success was defined as improvement> or =15 pts in ODI vs. baseline, no device failure, absence of major complications, and maintenance or improvement of neurological status. Additional clinical outcomes included an ODI questionnaire as well as VAS, SF-36, and patient satisfaction surveys. Work status was tracked for all patients. Safety assessments included occurrence and severity of adverse events and device failures. Radiographic analyses such as index- and adjacent-level range of motion, segmental translation, disc height, and longitudinal ossification were also carried out. RESULTS: Overall success was 57.8% in the CHARITE group vs. 51.2% in the BAK group (Blackwelder's test: p=0.0359, Delta=0.10). In addition, mean changes from baseline for ODI (CHARITE: -24.0 pts vs. BAK: -27.5 pts), VAS pain scores (CHARITE: -38.7 vs. BAK: -40.0), and SF-36 questionnaires (SF-36 Physical Component Scores [PCS]: CHARITE: 12.6 pts vs. BAK: 12.3 pts) were similar across groups. In patient satisfaction surveys, 78% of CHARITE patients were satisfied vs. 72% of BAK patients. A total of 65.6% patients in the CHARITE group vs. 46.5% patients in the BAK group were employed full-time. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.0403). Long-term disability was recorded for 8.0% of CHARITE patients and 20.9% of BAK patients, a difference that was also statistically significant (p=0.0441). Additional index-level surgery was performed in 7.7% of CHARITE patients and 16.3% of BAK patients. Radiographic findings included operative and adjacent-level range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc height and segmental translation. At the five-year follow-up, the mean ROM at the index level was 6.0 degrees for CHARITE patients and 1.0 degrees for BAK patients. Changes in disc height were also similar for both CHARITE and BAK patients (0.7 mm for both groups, p=0.9827). Segmental translation was 0.4 and 0.8mm in patients implanted with CHARITE at L4-L5 vs. L5-S1, respectively, and 0.1mm in BAK patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this five-year, prospective, randomized multicenter study are consistent with the two-year reports of noninferiority of CHARITE artificial disc vs. ALIF with BAK and iliac crest autograft. No statistical differences were found in clinical outcomes between groups. In addition, CHARITE patients reached a statistically greater rate of part- and full-time employment and a statistically lower rate of long-term disability, compared with BAK patients. Radiographically, the ROMs at index- and adjacent levels were not statistically different from those observed at two-years postsurgery.

Lumbar spinal arthroplasty: analysis of one center's twenty best and twenty worst clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from 2 concurrent FDA IDE lumbar arthroplasty clinical trials performed at a single center. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if factors differentiating those patients with the best and worst clinical outcomes from total disc arthroplasty (TDR) could be identified. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Overall the results of TDR have been favorable, including recent results from 2 FDA IDE trials conducted in the United States. However, as with any surgical procedure, there were some patients with extremely good outcomes, and some with poor outcomes. If factors differentiating these groups could be identified, this may help refine patient selection criteria and improve future results. METHODS: The databases of Charite and ProDisc patients at a single site were reviewed to identify patients who reached the 24-month follow-up period. A total of 203 patients, 63 who were implanted with the Charite prosthesis, and 140 who were implanted with the ProDisc prosthesis, were identified. The percentage change in the preoperative to postoperative VAS and Oswestry scores were used to identify the 10 best and 10 worst outcomes for each of the device types. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine which of a battery of demographic and clinical assessments were related to the best/worst group classification. RESULTS: Results of the regression analysis found that the only factor significantly related to clinical outcome was the length of time off work before surgery. None of the demographic variables, preoperative VAS or Oswestry scores or radiographic assessment of device placement, were significantly related to clinical outcome. Patients who were off work for shorter durations, or not at all, were more likely to be in the best-outcome group compared with patients who were off work for an extended period of time before surgery. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that among patients undergoing TDR, the length of time off work before surgery was related to outcome. No additional factors related to the best/worst classification were identified in the current study.

Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) have described significant complications. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) study of the Charité artificial disc represents the first level I data comparison of TDR to fusion. METHODS: In the prospective, randomized, multicenter IDE study, patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio, with 205 patients in the Charité group and 99 patients in the control group (anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] with BAK cages). Inclusion criteria included confirmed single-level degenerative disc disease at L4-5 or L5-S1 and failure of nonoperative treatment for at least 6 months. Complications were reported throughout the study. RESULTS: The rate of approach-related complications was 9.8% in the investigational group and 10.1% in the control group. The rate of major neurological complications was similar between the 2 groups (investigational = 4.4%, control = 4.0%). There was a higher rate of superficial wound infection in the investigational group but no deep wound infections in either group. Pseudarthrosis occurred in 9.1% of control group patients. The rate of subsidence in the investigational group was 3.4%. The reoperation rate was 5.4% in the investigational group and 9.1% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications for lumbar TDR was similar to that of ALIF. Vigilance is necessary with respect to patient indications, training, and correct surgical technique to maintain TDR complications at the levels experienced in the IDE study.

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.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement, using the CHARITE artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA), with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4-S1 unresponsive to nonoperative treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reported results of lumbar total disc replacement have been favorable, but studies have been limited to retrospective case series and/or small sample sizes. METHODS: Three hundred four (304) patients were enrolled in the study at 14 centers across the United States and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with the CHARITE artificial disc or the control group, instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Data were collected pre- and perioperatively at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery. The key clinical outcome measures were a Visual Analog Scale assessing back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire, and the SF-36 Health Survey. RESULTS: Patients in both groups improved significantly following surgery. Patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group recovered faster than patients in the control group. Patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group had lower levels of disability at every time interval from 6 weeks to 24 months, compared with the control group, with statistically lower pain and disability scores at all but the 24 month follow-up (P < 0.05). At the 24-month follow-up period, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group expressed satisfaction with their treatment and would have the same treatment again, compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CHARITE artificial disc group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study demonstrated that quantitative clinical outcome measures following lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc are at least equivalent to clinical outcomes with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. These results support earlier reports in the literature that total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration in properly indicated patients. The CHARITE artificial disc group demonstrated statistically significant superiority in two major economic areas, a 1-day shorter hospitalization, and a lower rate of reoperations (5.4% compared with 9.1%). At 24 months, the investigational group had a significantly higher rate of satisfaction (73.7%) than the 53.1% rate of satisfaction in the control group (P = 0.0011). This prospective randomized multicenter study also demonstrated an increase in employment of 9.1% in the investigational group and 7.2% in the control group.

Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: data from two investigational centers.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: For decades there has been a desire to restore motion of a painful degenerated spinal segment. Artificial discs have been used in Europe for almost 20 years. In the few reports available in the literature, the results have been promising. However, there have been no prospective randomized studies comparing artificial discs with spinal fusion. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease treated with Charite artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA) arthroplasty would show significant improvement in functional outcome measures and to compare these results to fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing total disc replacement with anterior lumbar interbody fusion using cages. The data reported were collected from two spine specialty centers participating in a Food and Drug Administration regulated trial. METHODS: A consecutive series of 144 patients were randomized using a 2:1 ratio of Charite versus BAK (Zimmer Spine, Minneapolis, MN). All patients were being treated for single-level discogenic pain confirmed by plain radiography, magnetic resonance imaging and provocative discography. Data were collected at designated follow-up periods for up to 24 months. RESULTS: The mean age was 40.1 years (range, 21 to 56 years). Forty-four cases had BAK anterior interbody fusion, and 100 cases were randomized to Charite disc replacement. The mean operating time was 76.2 minutes (range, 54 to 137 minutes) for the Charite cases. The mean estimated blood loss was 196.2 cc (range, 50 to 1,800 cc). Most patients were discharged in 1 to 2 days with a soft corset and returned to normal activities within 3 weeks if they underwent the disc replacement. The mean Oswestry Disability Index score for the BAK group was 69.6+/-12.8 preoperatively and 27.5+/-26.4 at 24-month follow-up (p<.001) The corresponding mean Oswestry score for the Charite disc patients was 70.9 preoperatively and 30.0 at 24-month follow-up (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective randomized study, both surgical groups improved significantly. Complications of total disc replacement were similar to those encountered with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Total disc replacement appears to be a viable alternative to fusion for the treatment of single-level symptomatic disc degeneration unresponsive to nonoperative management.

Prospective study evaluating total disc replacement: preliminary results.

For many years, there has been an interest in disc replacements. There are a few retrospective studies from Europe reporting promising results for these devices. The purpose of this study is to review the preliminary results of the SB Charité disc replacement device in a prospective study. The study group consists of a consecutive series of our first 57 patients who received the Link SB Charité device implanted through a mini-open anterior approach. The primary clinical indications for disc replacement were single-level symptomatic disc disease at L4-L5 or L5-S1 and no significant facet joint changes. The outcome data include the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) assessing pain intensity and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Data were collected prior to surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. Twenty-four-month follow-up data are currently being collected. The mean VAS score improved 50.8% by the 6-week follow-up, and significant improvement was maintained throughout follow-up. The mean Oswestry score improved 38.7% at the 6-week follow-up, and further slight improvement was noted during the later follow-up periods. This study found that significant improvements were achieved by the 6-week postoperative visit in the pain and disability scores following disc replacement surgery. Significant improvement was maintained through the 12-month follow-up visit. Although these preliminary results are encouraging, long-term follow-up and a greater number of patients are needed to further evaluate the outcome of these devices.

Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States.

Artificial discs have been used in Europe for many years with good results. This technology has recently been available in the United States on a limited, investigational basis. The purpose of this study is to review the preliminary results of one center's experience using the SB Charité III disc replacement. The study group consisted of the series of our first consecutive 56 patients who received the Link SB Charité III artificial disc. There were 25 men and 31 women, with a mean age of 39.9 years. All patients had single-level symptomatic disc disruption at L4-5 or L5-S1. The discs were implanted using the same approach as used for mini-open anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The primary data recorded included visual analog scales (VAS) assessing pain and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Data were collected pre-operatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-operatively. Peri-operative data as well as complications were recorded. At the time of this preliminary study, 22 patients have reached the 12-month post-operative follow-up period. There was a significant improvement in the VAS and Oswestry scores at the 6-week follow-up period. These improvements were maintained throughout the 12-month follow-up period. The preliminary results of this prospective study indicate that the artificial disc yields significant improvement that is maintained during a 12-month follow-up. Data from more patients and with longer follow-up are needed to determine whether these results can be maintained in the long term.