Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Aug;19(8):1250-61.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1394-x. Epub 2010 Apr 4.

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Wu Yajun  1 , Zhu Yue, Han Xiuxin, Cui Cui
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Wu Yajun et al. Eur Spine J. 2010 Aug.

Abstract

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have slightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year follow-up. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study selection process. The flow-chart showed the selection of randomized controlled trials for meta-analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pooled results of artificial total disc replacement versus lumbar fusion. The 2-year results of TDR versus fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD were shown, concerning function status, pain, patient satisfaction, complications, work status, and reoperation rate
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pooled results of artificial total disc replacement versus lumbar fusion after excluding the study with stand-alone cage interbody fusion
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. An H, Boden SD, Kang J, et al. Summary statement: emerging techniques for treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease. Spine. 2003;28:S24–S25. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200308011-00005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B et al (2009) Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:1512–1519 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. 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. Spine. 2005;30:1565–1575. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Booth DC, Bridwell KH, Eisenberg BA, et al. Minimum 5-year results of degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and instrumented posterior fusion. Spine. 1999;24:1721–1727. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199908150-00014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS. The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J. 2004;4:681–688. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.05.253. - DOI - PubMed