Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: a prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period
- PMID: 16506473
- DOI: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.85
Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: a prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period
Abstract
Object: The authors conducted a prospective longitudinal study to obtain outcome (minimum follow-up period 2 years) regarding the safety and efficacy of single-level lumbar disc (ProDisc prosthesis) replacement in patients 60 years of age or older.
Methods: This prospective analysis involved 22 patients treated in whom the lumbar ProDisc prosthesis was used for total disc arthroplasty. All patients presented with disabling discogenic low-back pain (LBP) with or without radicular pain. The involved segments ranged from L-2 to S-1. Patients in whom there was no evidence of radiographic circumferential spinal stenosis and with minimal or no facet joint degeneration were included. Patients were assessed preoperatively and outcome was evaluated postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months by administration of standardized tests (the visual analog scale [VAS], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], and patient satisfaction). Secondary parameters included analysis of pre- and postoperative radiographic results of disc height at the affected level, adjacent-level disc height and motion, and complications. Twenty-two (100%) fulfilled all follow-up criteria. The median age of all patients was 63 years (range 61-71 years). There were 17 single-level cases, four two-level cases, and one three-level case. Statistical improvements in VAS, ODI, and patient satisfaction scores were observed at 3 months postoperatively. These improvements were maintained at 24-month follow-up examination. Patient satisfaction rates were 94% at 24 months (compared with 95% reported in a previously reported ProDisc study). Radicular pain also decreased significantly. Patients in whom bone mineral density was decreased underwent same-session vertebroplasty following implantation of the ProDisc device(s). There were two cases involving neurological deterioration: unilateral foot drop and loss of proprioception and vibration in one patient and unilateral foot drop in another patient. Both deficits occurred in patients in whom there was evidence preoperatively of circumferential spinal stenosis. There were two cases of implant subsidence and no thromboembolic phenomena.
Conclusions: Significant improvements in patient satisfaction and ODI scores were observed by 3 months postoperatively and these improvements were maintained at the 2-year follow-up examination. Although the authors' early results indicate that the use of ProDisc lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age reduces chronic LBP and improves clinical functional outcomes, they recommend the judicious use of artificial disc replacement in this age group. Until further findings are reported, the authors cautiously recommend the use of artificial disc replacement in the treatment of chronic discogenic LBP in patients older than age 60 years in whom bone quality is adequate in the absence of circumferential spinal stenosis.
Similar articles
-
Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up.J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Feb;4(2):91-7. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.2.91. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006. PMID: 16506474 Clinical Trial.
-
The treatment of disabling single-level lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the Prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2230-6. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000182217.87660.40. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005. PMID: 16205353
-
The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2192-9. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000181061.43194.18. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005. PMID: 16205346
-
Lumbar total disc replacement. Surgical technique.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Mar;88 Suppl 1 Pt 1:50-64. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01066. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006. PMID: 16510800 Review.
-
Mid- to long-term results of total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review.J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Dec 26;13(1):326. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-1032-6. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018. PMID: 30585142 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
[Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].Chirurg. 2008 Oct;79(10):937-43. doi: 10.1007/s00104-008-1519-5. Chirurg. 2008. PMID: 18818895 German.
-
Heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disc replacement.Int Orthop. 2011 Aug;35(8):1197-201. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1095-4. Epub 2010 Jul 21. Int Orthop. 2011. PMID: 20652248 Free PMC article.
-
ISASS Policy Statement - Lumbar Artificial Disc.Int J Spine Surg. 2015 Mar 12;9:7. doi: 10.14444/2007. eCollection 2015. Int J Spine Surg. 2015. PMID: 25785243 Free PMC article.
-
Failure of lumbar disc surgery: management by fusion or arthroplasty?Int Orthop. 2019 Apr;43(4):981-986. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4228-9. Epub 2018 Nov 13. Int Orthop. 2019. PMID: 30426178 Review.
-
Biomechanical evaluation of a spherical lumbar interbody device at varying levels of subsidence.SAS J. 2011 Mar 1;5(1):16-25. doi: 10.1016/j.esas.2010.12.001. eCollection 2011. SAS J. 2011. PMID: 25802664 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous