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

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Center, St. Elizabeth Klinikum, Straubing, Germany; and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

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.

Abbreviations used in this paper:

ADL = activities of daily living; ADR = artificial disc replacement; AP = anteroposterior; CT = computerized tomography; LBP = low-back pain; MR = magnetic resonance; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PLL = posterior longitudinal ligament; VAS = visual analog scale.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    An HS, , Vaccaro A, , Simeone FA, , Balderston RA, & O’Neill D: Herniated lumbar disc in patients over the age of fifty. J Spinal Disord 3:143146, 1990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Bernick S, & Cailliet R: Vertebral end-plate changes with aging of human vertebrae. Spine 7:97102, 1982

  • 3

    Bertagnoli R, & Kumar S: Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 11:S131S136, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Bertagnoli R, , Yue JJ, , Shah RV, , Nanieva R, , Pfeiffer F, & Fenk-Mayer A, et al.: Discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 30:22302236, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Bertagnoli R, , Yue JJ, , Shah RV, , Nanieva R, , Pfeiffer F, & Fenk-Mayer A, et al.: The treatment of disabling multi-level lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 30:21922199, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Bressler HB, , Keyes WJ, , Rochon PA, & Badley E: The prevalence of low back pain in the elderly. A systematic review of the literature. Spine 24:18131819, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Delamarter RB, , Fribourg DM, , Kanim LE, & Bae H: ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: Introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine 28:S167S175, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Fairbank JC, , Couper J, , Davies JB, & O’Brien JP: The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271273, 1980

  • 9

    Hochschuler SH, , Ohnmeiss DD, , Guyer RD, & Blumenthal SL: Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine 11:S106S110, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Iguchi T, , Kanemura A, , Kasahara K, , Kurihara A, , Doita M, & Yoshiya S: Age distribution of three radiologic factors for lumbar instability: probable aging process of the instability with disc degeneration. Spine 28:26282633, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Javid MJ, & Hadar EJ: Long-term follow-up review of patients who underwent laminectomy for lumbar stenosis: a prospective Study. J Neurosurg 89:17, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Korovessis P, , Papazisis Z, , Koureas G, & Lambiris E: Rigid, semi-rigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine 29:735742, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Laohacharoensombat W, , Sirikulchayanonta V, , Meejan P, & Wajanavisit W: Interspinous bursa and spinal instability. J Med Assoc Thai 84:S520S527, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Lazaro L IV, & Quinet RJ: Low back pain: how to make the diagnosis in the older patient. Geriatrics 49:4853, 1994

  • 15

    Maistrelli GL, , Vaughan PA, , Evans DC, & Barrington TW: Lumbar disc herniation in the elderly. Spine 12:6366, 1987

  • 16

    Mayer HM: Diskogener Rückenschmerz und degenerative Spinalstenose: Wie sinnvoll sind operative Verfahren?. Schmerz 15:484491, 2001

  • 17

    Oldridge NB, , Yuan Z, , Stoll JE, & Rimm AR: Lumbar spine surgery and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries, 1986. Am J Public Health 84:12921298, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Shabat S, , Leitner Y, , Nyska M, , Berner Y, , Fredman B, & Gepstein R: Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients aged 65 years and older. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 35:143152, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Stoll TM, , Dubois G, & Schwarzenbach O: The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11:S170S178, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Tropiano P, , Huang RC, , Girardi FP, & Marnay T: Lumbar disc replacement: preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:362368, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Vitaz TW, , Raque GH, , Shields CB, & Glassman SD: Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in patients older than 75 years of age. J Neurosurg 9 :2 Suppl 181185, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Zigler JE: Clinical results with ProDisc: European experience and U.S. investigation device exemption study. Spine 28:S163S166, 2003

  • 23

    Zucherman JF, , Hsu KY, , Hartjen CA, , Mehalic TF, , Implicito DA, & Martin MJ, et al.: A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J 13:2231, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 650 218 11
Full Text Views 118 6 0
PDF Downloads 143 8 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0