Advanced meta-analyses comparing the three surgical techniques total disc replacement, anterior stand-alone fusion and circumferential fusion regarding pain, function and complications up to 3 years to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease.

PURPOSE: The purpose of our meta-analyses is to find the most appropriate surgical technique treating lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Spinal fusion is the conventional treatment for lumbar DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has been developed to avoid negative effects of fusions by preserving functionality. To our knowledge, there is no evaluation comparing meta-analytically the clinical results of three different surgical techniques with same inclusion and exclusion criteria for treating DDD. METHODS: The surgical techniques TDR, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and circumferential fusion (CFF) are pairwise meta-analytically compared. Primary outcomes are pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and function measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes are the mean number of complications per case (MNOC) at surgery and follow-up and the overall MNOC. RESULTS: In our systematic search, we found finally six prospective studies with the minimum follow-up of two years: four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies. In VAS and ODI, TDR is proved to be superior to ALIF and CCF (p < 0.05), whereat ALIF is more effective than CFF without statistical significance. CFF presents the best result in complications with the lowest overall MNOC (0.1), followed by TDR (1.2) and ALIF (1.5). CONCLUSION: According to our meta-analyses, we regard TDR to be the most appropriate surgical technique treating DDD, followed by ALIF. Further studies with a longer follow-up are needed using the same methodical approach to strengthen the VAS and ODI results and to explain the discrepant result to complications.

Meta-analyses comparing spine simulators with cadavers and finite element models by analysing range-of-motion data before and after lumbar total disc replacement.

BACKGROUND: Range-of-motion (ROM) data generated by the in vitro test methods of spine simulators with cadavers (SSCs) and finite element models (FEMs) are used alternatively and complementarily for in vitro evaluations. AIM OF REVIEW: Our purpose is to compare exemplary segmental ROM data from SSCs and FEMs before and after ball-and-socket total disc replacement (bsTDR) to determine whether the two test methods provide the same data for the same evaluation subjects. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: We performed 70 meta-analyses (MAs) and 20 additional comparative analyses based on data from 21 SSC studies used for 39 MAs and 16 FEM studies used for 31 MAs. Only fifty-nine percent (n = 23/39) of SSC MAs show a restored ROM after bsTDR, whereas in FEM MAs, the ROM is restored in ninety percent (n = 28/31). Among the analyses comparing data from the same spinal segments, motion directions and bsTDR, SSC and FEM data are significantly different in ten percent (n = 2/20). According to our results, data generated by SSCs and FEMs cannot be used as alternative and complementary data without restriction. The quality of the evaluation methods itself as well as potential technical reasons for the discrepant results were not our evaluation target. Further SSC and FEM data should be compared using the same approach.