Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications.
ABSTRACT Prospective study analyzing midterm clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement (ProDisc II) for different indications.
To assess functional outcome after total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) treated for varying indications.
Despite its frequent use and increasing popularity, indications and contraindications for TDR have not been defined precisely at this stage and remain a matter of debate, leading to disc replacement procedures in a variety of pathologies that have not yet been evaluated and compared separately.
Patients meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated prospectively according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Questionnaire, SF-36, and numerous clinical parameters. Indications included degenerative disc disease (DDD), DDD with accompanying soft disc herniation (nucleus pulposus prolapse, NPP), osteochondrosis following previous discectomy, and DDD with presence of Modic changes. Postoperative improvement was recorded and analyzed for influence of preoperative diagnosis.
Overall, 92 patients from four groups with a mean follow-up of 34.2 months (minimum, 24 months) achieved significant and maintained improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0001). Patients with DDD + NPP achieved results significantly better than patients from the other groups (P < 0.05). Presence of Modic changes or previous discectomy did not influence outcome negatively. Improvement was achieved for both monosegmental and bisegmental disc replacements (P < 0.05), nevertheless with significantly inferior results for bisegmental interventions at 12- and 24-month follow-up and considerably higher complication rate. While older patients were still highly satisfied with postoperative outcome, better functional outcome was observed in younger patients.
Present data suggest beneficial clinical results of TDR for treatment of DDD in a highly selected group of patients. Better functional outcome was obtained in younger patients under 40 years of age and patients with degenerative disc disease in association with disc herniation. Multilevel disc replacement had significantly higher complication rate and inferior outcome. Results are significantly dependent on preoperative diagnosis and patient selection, number of replaced segments, and age of the patient at the time of operation. Because of significantly varying outcomes, indications for disc replacement must be defined precisely.
- SourceAvailable from: Cynthia Peterson[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare outcomes after imaging-guided transforaminal lumbar nerve root blocks in MRI confirmed symptomatic disc herniation patients with and without Modic changes (MC). Methods: Consecutive adult patients with MRI confirmed symptomatic lumbar disc herniations and an imaging-guided lumbar nerve root block injection who returned an outcomes questionnaire are included. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain data was collected prior to injection and 20-30 min after injection. NRS and overall improvement were assessed using the patient's global impression of change (PGIC) scale at 1 day, 1 week and 1 month post injection. The proportion of patients with and without MC on MRI as well as Modic I and Modic II was calculated. These groups were compared for clinically relevant 'improvement' using the Chi-squared test. Baseline and follow-up NRS scores were compared for the groups using the unpaired t-test. Results: 346 patients are included with MC present in 57%. A higher percentage of patients without MC reported 'improvement' and a higher percentage of patients with MC reported 'worsening' but this did not reach statistical significance. The numerical scores on the PGIC and NRS scales showed that patients with MC had significantly higher pain and worse overall improvement scores at 1 month (p = 0.048 and p = 0.03) and a significantly lower 1 month NRS change score (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Patients with MRI confirmed symptomatic lumbar disc herniations and MC report significantly lower levels of pain reduction after a lumbar nerve root block compared to patients without MC.European Journal of Radiology 06/2014; 83(10). DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.008 · 2.16 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Studies have shown that lumbar surgery (LS) outcomes may be influenced by perception. However, the perceptions of the general population regarding LS are not known. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the general population's perceptions regarding LS.Orthopaedic Nursing 09/2013; DOI:10.1097/NOR.0000000000000064 · 0.60 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Since their first description more than 80 yr ago, the use of diagnostic spinal injections to predict surgical outcomes has been the subject of intense controversy. Because there are no standardized guidelines or substantive reviews on this topic, their use has remained inconsistent. Diagnostic procedures included in this review were lumbar and cervical discography, lumbar facet blocks, lumbar and cervical selective nerve root blocks, and sacroiliac (SI) joint injections. We garnered materials via MEDLINE and OVID search engines, books and book chapters, bibliographic references, and conference proceedings. The lack of randomized, comparative studies for all blocks limited the conclusions that could be drawn. For the data that do exist, there is limited evidence that lumbar discography improves fusion outcomes, and no evidence that it influences disk replacement results. Although limited in scope, the current literature supports the notion that cervical discography improves surgical outcomes. There is strong evidence that lumbar selective nerve root blocks improve the identification of a symptomatic nerve root(s), and moderate evidence that both lumbar and cervical nerve root blocks improve surgical outcomes. The data supporting surgery for facet arthropathy are weak, and the use of screening blocks does not appear to improve outcomes. The data supporting SI joint fusion for degenerative, nontraumatic injuries are similarly weak. Because the most reliable method to diagnose a painful SI joint is with low volume, diagnostic injections, one might reasonably conclude that screening blocks improve surgical outcomes. However, this conclusion is not supported by indirect evidence. The ability to evaluate the effect of diagnostic blocks on surgical outcomes is limited by a lack of randomized studies, methodological flaws, and wide-ranging discrepancies with regard to injection variables, surgical technique, and outcome measures. More research is needed to optimize injection techniques and determine which, if any, diagnostic screening blocks can improve surgical outcomes.Anesthesia and analgesia 01/2008; 105(6):1756-75, table of contents. DOI:10.1213/01.ane.0000287637.30163.a2 · 3.42 Impact Factor