Search

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., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Although many meta-analyses have been performed to compare total disc replacement (TDR) and fusion for treating lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD), their findings are inconsistent. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing TDR with fusion for treating LDDD, to assist decision makers in selection among conflicting meta-analyses, and to provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence., Methods: This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Multiple databases were comprehensively searched for meta-analyses comparing TDR with fusion for treating LDDD. Meta-analyses only comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently assessed meta-analysis quality and extracted data. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analyses represented the best evidence., Results: A total of five meta-analyses were included. All these studies only included RCTs were determined as Level-II evidence. The scores of Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) ranged from 6 to 9 (median 7). A high-quality Cochrane review was chosen according to the Jadad algorithm. This best available evidence found that statistical significances were observed between TDR and fusion for LDDD regarding disability, pain relief, and pain in the short term, but it was not over clinically important differences. The prevent effects on adjacent segment and facet joint degeneration, as the primary goal of adopting TDR stated by the manufacturers, were not appropriately evaluated., Conclusions: There is discord in results from meta-analyses that assessed TDR and fusion for LDDD. According to this systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing TDR and fusion for LDDD, the current best available evidence suggests that TDR may be an effective technique for the treatment of selected patients with LDDD, and is at least equal to lumbar fusion in the short term. However, considering that disadvantages may appear after years, spine surgeons should be cautions about performing TDR on a large scale.

Background Context: Surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) remains controversial. Options include anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior approach fusion procedures such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), anterior and posterior lumbar fusion (APLF), and total disc replacement (TDR). However, the trends during the last decade are uncertain., Purpose: To examine the trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar DDD on a national level., Study Design: A retrospective analysis of population-based national hospital discharge data collected for the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)., Patient Sample: In the NIS from 2000 to 2009, patients aged 18 years or older with primary diagnosis of lumbar/lumbosacral DDD who underwent surgical treatment were included., Outcome Measures: Trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar DDD., Methods: Clinical data were derived from the NIS between 2000 and 2009. Patients aged 18 years or older with a primary diagnosis of lumbar/lumbosacral DDD who underwent spinal fusion or TDR were identified. Data regarding patient- and health care system-related characteristics were retrieved and analyzed., Results: A total of 380,305 patients underwent surgical treatment for lumbar DDD between 2000 and 2009. Population adjusted incidence increased 2.4-fold from 2000 to 2009. Among the procedures, APLF increased 3.0-fold and PLIF/PLF increased 2.8-fold. Total disc replacement did not increase significantly. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed in 16.8% of patients, PLIF/PLF in 67.9%, APLF in 13.6%, and TDR in 1.8%. Surgical treatment for lumbar DDD was 1.8 times more common in the Midwest region and 1.7 times more common in the South region than in the Northeast region. Total disc replacement was more common in younger patients and in the Northeast region. Poterior lumbar interbody fusion/PLF was more common in older patients and in the South region., Conclusions: During the last decade, surgical treatment for lumbar DDD has increased 2.4-fold in the United States. Although all fusion procedures significantly increased, TDR did not increase. Surgical treatment for lumbar DDD was more common in the Midwest and South regions. Trends in the procedures were different depending on the age group and hospital region., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of artificial total disc replacement (TDR) with fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Summary of background data: Spinal fusion is the conventional surgical treatment for lumbar DDD. Recently, TDR has been developed to avoid the negative effects of the fusion by preserving function of the motion segment. Controversy still surrounds regarding whether TDR is better. Methods: We systematically searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Clinical, Ovid, BIOSIS and Cochrane registry of controlled clinical trials) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2013 in which TDR was compared with the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Then, we performed the meta-analysis. Results: Seven relevant RCTs with a total of 1,584 patients were included. TDR was more effective in ODI (MD −5.09; 95 % CI [−7.33, −2.84]; P < 0.00001), VAS score (MD −5.31; 95 % CI [−8.35, −2.28]; P = 0.0006), shorter duration of hospitalization (MD −0.82; 95 % CI [−1.38, −0.26]; P = 0.004) and a greater proportion of willing to choose the same operation again (OR 2.32; 95 % CI [1.69, 3.20]; P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between the two treatment methods regarding operating time (MD −44.16; 95 % CI [−94.84, 6.52]; P = 0.09), blood loss (MD −29.14; 95 % CI [−173.22, 114.94]; P = 0.69), complications (OR 0.72; 95 % CI [0.45, 1.14]; P = 0.16), reoperation rate (OR 0.83; 95 % CI [0.39, 1.77]; P = 0.63) and the proportion of patients who returned to full-time/part-time work (OR 1.10; 95 % CI [0.86, 1.41]; P = 0.47). Conclusion: TDR showed significant safety and efficacy comparable to lumbar fusion at 2 year follow-up. TDR demonstrated superiorities in improved physical function, reduced pain and shortened duration of hospitalization. The benefits of operating time, blood loss, motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be proved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 sightly 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]