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.

Is the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Justified During Lumbar Anterior Approach Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) became widely used in spine surgery to reduce the risk of iatrogenic nerve injury. However, the proliferation of IONM has fallen into question based on effectiveness and costs, with a lack of evidence supporting its benefit for specific spine surgery procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of IONM and the rate of neurological injury associated with anterior lumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on a consecutive series of 359 patients undergoing lumbar anterior approach surgery for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), total disc replacement (TDR), or hybrid (ALIF with TDR) for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. Patients undergoing any posterior spine surgery were excluded. Operative notes were reviewed to identify any changes in IONM and the surgeon's response. Clinic notes were reviewed up to 3 months postoperatively for indications of iatrogenic nerve injury. RESULTS: There were 3 aberrant results with respect to IONM. Changes in IONM of a lower extremity occurred for 1 patient (0.3%). The surgeon evaluated the situation and there was no observable reason for the IONM change. Upon waking, the patient was found to have no neurological deficit. There were 2 cases of neurologic deficits in this population, which were classified as false-negatives of IONM (0.56%, 95% CI: 0.1% to 1.8%). In both cases, the patients were found to have a foot drop after the anterior approach surgery. CONCLUSION: In this study, there was 1 false-positive and 2 false-negative results of IONM. These data suggest that IONM is not beneficial in this population. However, many surgeons may feel obligated to use IONM for medicolegal reasons. There is a need for future studies to delineate cases in which IONM is beneficial and the type of monitoring to use, if any, for specific spine surgery types. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study questions the routine use of IONM in anterior lumbar approach surgery for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. This has significant implications related to the cost of this practice.

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.

Appropriate Telemedicine Utilization in Spine Surgery: Results From a Delphi Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Delphi expert panel consensus. OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert consensus on best practices for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have shown high patient satisfaction associated with telemedicine during the COVID-19 peak pandemic period as well as after easing of restrictions. As this technology will most likely continue to be employed, there is a need to define appropriate utilization. METHODS: An expert panel consisting of 27 spine surgeons from various countries was assembled in February 2021. A two-round consensus-based Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements on various aspects of telemedicine (separated as video visits or audio visits) including themes, such as patient location and impact of patient diagnosis, on assessment of new patients. Topics with ≥75% agreement were categorized as having achieved a consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reviewed a total of 59 statements. Of these, 32 achieved consensus. The panel had consensus that video visits could be utilized regardless of patient location and that video visits are appropriate for evaluating as well as indicating for surgery multiple common spine pathologies, such as lumbar stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and cervical radiculopathy. Finally, the panel had consensus that video visits could be appropriate for a variety of visit types including early, midterm, longer term postoperative follow-up, follow-up for imaging review, and follow-up after an intervention (i.e., physical therapy, injection). CONCLUSION: Although telemedicine was initially introduced out of necessity, this technology most likely will remain due to evidence of high patient satisfaction and significant cost savings. This study was able to provide a framework for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery from a panel of experts. However, several questions remain for future research, such as whether or not an in-person consultation is necessary prior to surgery and which physical exam maneuvers are appropriate for telemedicine.Level of Evidence: 4.

Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study.

OBJECT: Patient selection is perhaps the most important factor in successful lumbar surgery. In this study, the authors analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption (IDE) trial who underwent revision surgery after primary total disc replacement with CHARITE or an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with placement of a BAK cage and iliac crest autograft. This revision surgery was either a supplemental posterior lumbar fixation or a 360 degrees fusion. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare clinical success in patients who underwent revision surgery with those who did not. METHODS: The patients enrolled in the CHARITE IDE study were divided into 6 groups according to treatment and repeated operation status, and their Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores at the 2-year follow-up and at baseline were compared. The patients had received the following treatments by group: A) ALIF without reoperation; B) ALIF with conversion to 360 degrees fusion; C) arthroplasty (randomized) without repeated operation; D) arthroplasty with supplemental posterior lumbar fixation; E) arthroplasty (nonrandomized) without repeated operation; and F) arthroplasty (nonrandomized) with supplemental posterior lumbar fixation. Outcome scores in the groups of patients who required revision surgeries (Groups B, D, and F; 23 patients) were compared with the groups that did not require revision surgery (Groups A, C, and E; 299 patients). RESULTS: Patients who required revision surgery had a significantly lower level of clinical improvement than those who did not. The mean change in ODI score was -53.0% in Groups A, C, and E, but just -12.7% in Groups B, D, and F (p < 0.0001). The mean change in VAS score was -59.1% in Groups A, C, and E, compared to -23.4% in Groups B, D, and F (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were identified in analyzing absolute change in scores and the percentage change. A comparison of outcomes in patients who had undergone arthroplasty without reoperation (Groups C and E) with all patients who had undergone revision surgery (Groups B, D, and F) demonstrated similar results (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The 7.1% of patients who underwent a secondary stabilization procedure had poor clinical improvement. This finding may indicate that if the alternative treatment had been the initial treatment, these patients would not have benefited, and further implies a 7.1% rate of imprecision in preoperative evaluation.

Effect of age on clinical and radiographic outcomes and adverse events following 1-level lumbar arthroplasty after a minimum 2-year follow-up.

OBJECT: Lumbar arthroplasty is approved in the US for the treatment of degenerative disc disease at 1 level in skeletally mature patients. However, a bias toward older patients (> 45 years of age) who are otherwise indicated for the procedure may exist. In this study, the clinical outcomes of patients from the Charité Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study were analyzed on the basis of patient age. METHODS: There were 276 patients enrolled in the IDE study of the Charité Artificial Disc who underwent 1-level arthroplasty at either L4-5 or L5-S1, including 71 nonrandomized and 205 randomized individuals. Patient data were analyzed based on age (18-45 years [217 patients, Group 1] compared with 46-60 years [59 patients, Group 2]). Statistical analyses were performed based on 2-year postoperative improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores (clinical outcome), as well as range of motion (radiographic outcome), and adverse events. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to level implanted, operative time, blood loss, changes in ODI and VAS scores or any of the 8 component scores of the SF-36, compared with baseline, at all time points throughout the 24-month follow-up period (p > 0.10). Patient satisfaction was equivalent at 24 months, with 87% satisfaction in Group 1 and 85% satisfaction in Group 2 (no statistical difference). In addition, no significant differences were identified with respect to adverse events including approach related, neurological, technique related, or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients > 45 years of age may have comorbidities or contraindications for arthroplasty for a number of reasons, particularly osteopenia, this analysis demonstrates that patients who are indicated for 1-level arthroplasty experience similar clinical outcome, satisfaction, or adverse events compared with their younger counterparts.

Effect of previous surgery on clinical outcome following 1-level lumbar arthroplasty.

OBJECT: A secondary lumbar surgery at a previously surgically treated level is believed to result in minimal clinical improvement. The clinical results of the CHARITE Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study were analyzed to assess the effect of previous surgery on clinical outcomes following either total disc replacement with the CHARITE device or anterior lumbar interbody fusion with a BAK cage and iliac crest autograft. METHODS: Patients with prior microdiscectomy, laminectomy, or minimal medial facetectomy were not excluded from enrollment in the CHARITE IDE study. Thus, the following 3 groups were analyzed: all patients treated with the CHARITE Artificial Disc, whether randomized or nonrandomized; only patients treated with CHARITE devices randomized against patients with BAK devices; and control patients with BAK devices. Each group was further subdivided based on the patients' medical history, whether they had undergone prior surgery (prior surgery group) or had not (no prior surgery group). For all groups, baseline demographics were collected and compared for any potential recruitment bias. Postoperative improvements based on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction scores were further collected and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: For all 3 groups, there were no statistical differences in clinical improvement from 3 months to 2 years postoperatively as measured using ODI and VAS scores between the subgroups (those who had prior surgery and those who did not). CONCLUSIONS: Patients indicated for 1-level lumbar arthroplasty with previous lumbar decompressive surgery can be expected to have similar clinical outcomes to patients undergoing arthroplasty without prior lumbar decompressive surgery. Similarly, candidates for anterior lumbar fusion with prior decompressive surgery may experience similar benefits from the surgical procedure as those without.

Distribution of in vivo and in vitro range of motion following 1-level arthroplasty with the CHARITE artificial disc compared with fusion.

OBJECT: One of the goals of lumbar arthroplasty is to restore and maintain range of motion (ROM) and to protect adjacent levels from abnormal motion, which may be a factor in transition syndrome following arthrodesis. In this study, in vitro ROM results were compared with in vivo, 2-year postoperative radiographic ROM evaluations. METHODS: Radiographs of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption study were analyzed at baseline and at 2 years postoperatively. The ROM in flexion/extension at the implanted and adjacent levels was measured, normalized, and compared with ROM results obtained using cadaver (in vitro) evaluations. RESULTS: Preoperative ROM distributions in patients enrolled for arthroplasty or fusion at the L4-5 level was as follows: 28% motion was observed at L3-4, 35% at L4-5 and 37% at L5-S1. Following a one-level arthroplasty at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 36% at L3-4, 30% at L4-5 and 35% at L5-S1. Following a one-level fusion with BAK and pedicle screws at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 45% at L3-4, 9% at L4-5 and 46% at L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: The baseline as well as the 2-year in vivo data confirmed previously published in vitro data. One-level arthroplasty was shown herein to replicate the normal distribution of motion of the intact spine.

Progression of Adjacent-level Degeneration After Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Results of a Post-hoc Analysis of Patients With Available Radiographs From a Prospective Study With 5-year Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of 5-year follow-up data from a randomized, multicenter trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of progression in radiographic adjacent-level degeneration (ΔALD) from preoperative assessment to 5 years after total disc replacement (TDR) and the relationship of these changes with range of motion and clinical adjacent-level disease. A secondary objective was to compare adjacent-level degeneration (ALD) outcomes between TDR and fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fusion is associated with high rates of ALD in symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration. TDR may reduce this risk. METHODS: In total, 175 patients with single-level, symptomatic, lumbar disc degeneration who had received activL or ProDisc-L and had a preoperative and 5-year postoperative radiograph available were included. Over 5-year follow-up, ΔALD was defined as an increase in ALD of ≥1 grade and clinical ALD was defined as surgical treatment at the level adjacent to an index TDR. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted to compare ALD outcomes after TDR (current trial) with those after fusion (published trial). RESULTS: At 5-year follow-up, 9.7% (17/175) of TDR patients had ΔALD at the superior level. In patients with preoperative ALD at the superior level, most (88% [23/26]) showed no radiographic progression over 5 years. The rate of clinical ALD was 2.3% (4/175) and none of these patients had ALD at baseline. For each degree of range of motion gained at the TDR level, there was a consistent decrease in the percentage of patients with ΔALD. After matching and adjustment of baseline characteristics, TDR had a significantly lower likelihood of ΔALD than fusion (odds ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.76). CONCLUSION: The rates of ΔALD and clinical ALD in this TDR population were similar to those previously reported in the literature for TDR at 5-year follow-up. TDR had a significantly lower rate of ΔALD than fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Interspinous Process Decompression: Expanding Treatment Options for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Interspinous process decompression is a minimally invasive implantation procedure employing a stand-alone interspinous spacer that functions as an extension blocker to prevent compression of neural elements without direct surgical removal of tissue adjacent to the nerves. The Superion® spacer is the only FDA approved stand-alone device available in the US. It is also the only spacer approved by the CMS to be implanted in an ambulatory surgery center. We computed the within-group effect sizes from the Superion IDE trial and compared them to results extrapolated from two randomized trials of decompressive laminectomy. For the ODI, effect sizes were all very large (>1.0) for Superion and laminectomy at 2, 3, and 4 years. For ZCQ, the 2-year Superion symptom severity (1.26) and physical function (1.29) domains were very large; laminectomy effect sizes were very large (1.07) for symptom severity and large for physical function (0.80). Current projections indicate a marked increase in the number of patients with spinal stenosis. Consequently, there remains a keen interest in minimally invasive treatment options that delay or obviate the need for invasive surgical procedures, such as decompressive laminectomy or fusion. Stand-alone interspinous spacers may fill a currently unmet treatment gap in the continuum of care and help to reduce the burden of this chronic degenerative condition on the health care system.

Intervertebral cages for degenerative spinal diseases.

Interbody fusion techniques have been used for many years for the treatment of a variety of lumbar spine diagnoses. Part of the interest in increasing methods of interbody fusion has stemmed from concern that posterior fusion alone may allow micro-motion, which may generate pain in a ruptured or degenerated disc. Stabilization of the anterior segment led to the development of interbody fusion cages. These devices were designed to stabilize the spine while bony ingrowth from the vertebrae to the bone graft occurred. There are a variety of techniques for cage insertion, including open and laparoscopic techniques anteriorly, and open posterior approach. A lateral approach for cage placement has also been reported. The purpose of this paper is to present a review of the literature on lumbar intervertebral fusion performed using interbody cages. The reported results for these procedures vary, but in general the majority of patients have had favorable results. The complications are similar to those encountered with traditional interbody fusion procedures using bone grafts. There is a learning curve associated with the procedures, particularly with the laparoscopic techniques. Appropriate training for the spine surgeon as well as the access surgeon is important. There is a great deal of disparity in reports on using the cages as stand-alone devices as well as on laparoscopic approaches. Overall, the use of interbody cages for fusion appears to be a viable treatment, yielding good results. Fusion cages appear to have a role in spine care; however, as with any procedure, patient selection and proper training of the surgeon are critical.

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.