51. Long-term clinical outcome of the Charité III total lumbar disc replacement.
- Author
-
Kitzen J, Schotanus MGM, van Kuijk SMJ, Jutten EMC, Kort NP, van Rhijn LW, and Willems PC
- Subjects
- Adult, Bone Transplantation methods, Chronic Pain etiology, Chronic Pain surgery, Device Removal adverse effects, Female, Femur Head transplantation, Humans, Joint Prosthesis adverse effects, Low Back Pain etiology, Low Back Pain surgery, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Prosthesis Failure, Reoperation adverse effects, Reoperation methods, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Intervertebral Disc surgery, Intervertebral Disc Degeneration complications, Intervertebral Disc Degeneration surgery, Lumbar Vertebrae surgery, Spinal Fusion adverse effects, Spinal Fusion methods, Total Disc Replacement adverse effects
- Abstract
Purpose: To compare the long-term clinical results and complications of two revision strategies for patients with failed total disc replacements (TDRs)., Methods: In 19 patients, the TDR was removed and the intervertebral defect was filled with a femoral head bone strut graft. In addition, instrumented posterolateral fusion was performed (removal group). In 36 patients, only a posterolateral instrumented fusion was performed (fusion group). Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were completed pre- and post-revision surgery. Intra- and post-operative complications of both revision strategies were assessed., Results: The median follow-up was 12.3 years (range 5.3-24.3). In both the removal and fusion group, a similar (p = 0.515 and p = 0419, respectively) but significant decrease in VAS- (p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and ODI-score (p = 0.033 and p = 0.013, respectively) at post-revision surgery compared to pre-revision surgery was seen. A clinically relevant improvement in VAS- and ODI-score was found in 62.5% and 43.8% in the removal group and in 43.5% and 39.1% in the fusion group (p = 0.242 and p = 0.773, respectively). Removal of the TDR was associated with substantial intra-operative complications such as major vessel bleeding and ureter lesion. The percentage of late reoperations for complications such as pseudarthrosis was comparable for both revision strategies., Conclusions: Revision of a failed TDR is clinically beneficial in about half of the patients. No clear benefits for additional TDR removal as compared to posterolateral instrumented fusion alone could be identified. Particularly, when considering the substantial risks and complications, great caution is warranted with removal of the TDR. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF