Long-term clinical outcome of the Charité III total lumbar disc replacement.
Adult
Bone Transplantation
/ methods
Chronic Pain
/ etiology
Device Removal
/ adverse effects
Female
Femur Head
/ transplantation
Humans
Intervertebral Disc
/ surgery
Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
/ complications
Joint Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Low Back Pain
/ etiology
Lumbar Vertebrae
/ surgery
Male
Middle Aged
Pain Measurement
Prosthesis Failure
Reoperation
/ adverse effects
Risk Factors
Spinal Fusion
/ adverse effects
Total Disc Replacement
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Clinical follow-up
Degenerative disc disease
Lumbar spine
Risk factors
Spine arthroplasty
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
25
05
2019
accepted:
18
01
2020
revised:
30
11
2019
pubmed:
30
1
2020
medline:
3
6
2021
entrez:
30
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the long-term clinical results and complications of two revision strategies for patients with failed total disc replacements (TDRs). In 19 patients, the TDR was removed and the intervertebral defect was filled with a femoral head bone strut graft. In addition, instrumented posterolateral fusion was performed (removal group). In 36 patients, only a posterolateral instrumented fusion was performed (fusion group). Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were completed pre- and post-revision surgery. Intra- and post-operative complications of both revision strategies were assessed. The median follow-up was 12.3 years (range 5.3-24.3). In both the removal and fusion group, a similar (p = 0.515 and p = 0419, respectively) but significant decrease in VAS- (p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and ODI-score (p = 0.033 and p = 0.013, respectively) at post-revision surgery compared to pre-revision surgery was seen. A clinically relevant improvement in VAS- and ODI-score was found in 62.5% and 43.8% in the removal group and in 43.5% and 39.1% in the fusion group (p = 0.242 and p = 0.773, respectively). Removal of the TDR was associated with substantial intra-operative complications such as major vessel bleeding and ureter lesion. The percentage of late reoperations for complications such as pseudarthrosis was comparable for both revision strategies. Revision of a failed TDR is clinically beneficial in about half of the patients. No clear benefits for additional TDR removal as compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion alone could be identified. Particularly, when considering the substantial risks and complications, great caution is warranted with removal of the TDR. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31993792
doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06308-8
pii: 10.1007/s00586-020-06308-8
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM