Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: Second report of a randomized study

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue 25, 2012, Pages 2063-2073

  Hellum, Christian ^a   Berg, Linda ^b,c   Gjertsen, Øivind ^a   Johnsen, Lars Gunnar ^d   Neckelmann, Gesche ^b   Storheim, Kjersti ^a   Keller, Anne ^a   Grundnes, Oliver ^e   Espeland, Ansgar ^b,c  

^a OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^d TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^e Aleris Hospital   (Norway)

Author keywords

Adjacent level; Degeneration; Disc prosthesis; Facet joint degeneration; Low back pain

Indexed keywords

ADJACENT LEVEL DEGENERATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEIGHT; HUMAN; INDEX LEVEL FACET ARTHROPATHY; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LOW BACK PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEUS PULPOSUS; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; CHRONIC PAIN; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PAIN MEASUREMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SACRUM; TIME FACTORS; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ZYGAPOPHYSEAL JOINT;

EID: 84870893887     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318263cc46     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S. Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J 2002 ; 11 ( suppl 2 ): S131-6.
2. van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, van Royen BJ, et al. Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2010 ; 19 : 1262-80.
3. Ekman P, Moller H, Shalabi A, et al. A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 2009 ; 18 : 1175-86.
4. Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI, et al. An evidencebased medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 2008 ; 33 : 1262-9.
5. Chen SH, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, et al. Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys 2009 ; 31 : 244-53.
6. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, et al. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 1995 ; 20 : 526-31.
7. Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C, et al. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 2007 ; 32 : 1311-9.
8. Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 2008 ; 33 : 1701-7.
9. Hassett G, Hart DJ, Manek NJ, et al. Risk factors for progression of lumbar spine disc degeneration: the Chingford Study. Arthritis Rheum. 2003 ; 48 : 3112-7.
10. Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, et al. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J 2011 ; 11 : 11-20.
11. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004 ;86-A: 1497-503.
12. Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, et al. Charité total disc replacement-clinical and radiographical results after an average followup of 17 years. Eur Spine J 2006 ; 15 : 183-95.
13. Trouillier H, Kern P, Refior HJ, et al. A prospective morphological study of facet joint integrity following intervertebral disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc. Eur Spine J 2006 ; 15 : 174-82.
14. Siepe CJ, Zelenkov P, Sauri-Barraza JC, et al. The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, x-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2010 ; 35 : 1991-2003.
15. Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, et al. Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two-year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ 2011 ;342:d 2786.
16. Masharawi Y, Kjaer P, Bendix T, et al. The reproducibility of quantitative measurements in lumbar magnetic resonance imaging of children from the general population. Spine 2008 ; 33 : 2094-100.
17. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, et al. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 1988 ; 166 : 193-9.
18. Aprill C, Bogduk N. High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 1992 ; 65 : 361-9.
19. Luoma K, Riihimaki H, Luukkonen R, et al. Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine 2000 ; 25 : 487-92.
20. Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 2003 ; 28 : 1913-21.
21. Fairbank JCTM, Pynsent PBP. The Oswestry Disability Index. [Review]. Spine 2000 ; 25 : 2940-53.
22. Jensen TS, Sorensen JS, Kjaer P. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of vertebral endplate signal (modic) changes in the lumbar spine: the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification. Acta Radiol 2007 ; 48 : 748-54.
23. Fardon DF, Milette PC. Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine 2001 ; 26 : E93-113.
24. Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, et al. Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 2009 ; 250 : 161-70.
25. Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Yamato M, et al. The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J 1999 ; 8 : 396-401.
26. Berg L, Neckelmann G, Gjertsen O, et al. Reliability of MRI findings in candidates for lumbar disc prosthesis. Neuroradiology 2012 ; 54 : 699-707.
27. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007 ; 60 : 34-42.
28. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2004 ; 29 : 1938-44.
29. Le HJ, Basso Y, Mathews H, et al. The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study. Eur Spine J 2005 ; 14 : 480-6.
30. Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC, et al. Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 2007 ; 16 : 411-21.
31. Ingalhalikar AV, Reddy CG, Lim TH, et al. Effect of lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the segmental motion and intradiscal pressure at the adjacent level: an in vitro biomechanical study: presented at the 2008 Joint Spine Section Meeting Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 2009 ; 11 : 715-23.
32. Rundell SA, Auerbach JD, Balderston RA, et al. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine 2008 ; 33 : 2510-7.
33. Siepe CJ, Hitzl W, Meschede P, et al. Interdependence between disc space height, range of motion and clinical outcome in total lumbar disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2009 ; 34 : 904-16.
34. Yang JY, Lee JK, Song HS. The impact of adjacent segment degeneration on the clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2008 ; 33 : 503-7.
35. Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Stromqvist B. Adjacent segment hypermobility after lumbar spine fusion: no association with progressive degeneration of the segment 5 years after surgery. Acta Orthop 2007 ; 78 : 834-9.
36. Park CK, Ryu KS, Jee WH. Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2008 ; 33 : 1755-61.
37. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, et al. Biomechanical changes of the lumbar segment after total disc replacement: Charité®, Prodisc®, and Maverick® using finite element model study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010 ; 47 : 446-53.
38. Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S, et al. Infl uence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005 ; 18 : 219-23.
39. Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2001 ; 26 : E122-9.
40. Barrey C, Jund J, Noseda O, et al. Sagittal balance of the pelvisspine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J 2007 ; 16 : 1459-67.
41. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, et al. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.) 2005 ; 30 : 346-53.
42. Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R, et al. Disc arthroplasty design infl uences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 2006 ; 6 : 258-66.
43. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 2007 ; 32 : 1012-8.
44. Mathews HH, Lehuec JC, Friesem T, et al. Design rationale and biomechanics of Maverick total disc arthroplasty with early clinical results. Spine J 2004 ; 4 : 268S-75S.
45. Le Huec JC, Lafage V, Bonnet X, et al. Validated finite element analysis of the Maverick total disc prosthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010 ; 23 : 249-57.
46. Bankier AA, Levine D, Halpern EF, et al. Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way ? Radiology 2010 ; 257 : 14-7.
47. Wu HT, Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME. Edematous Schmorl's nodes on thoracolumbar MR imaging: characteristic patterns and changes over time. Skeletal Radiol 2006 ; 35 : 212-9.
48. Mitra D, Cassar-Pullicino VN, McCall IW. Longitudinal study of high intensity zones on MR of lumbar intervertebral discs. Clin Radiol 2004 ; 59 : 1002-8.
49. Oei EH, Koster IM, Hensen JH, et al. MRI follow-up of conservatively treated meniscal knee lesions in general practice. Eur Radiol 2010 ; 20 : 1242-50.
50. Vetti N, Krakenes J, Ask T, et al. Follow-up MR imaging of the alar and transverse ligaments after whiplash injury: a prospective controlled study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011 ; 32 : 1836-41.
51. Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, et al. MR imaging of the lumbar spine: prevalence of intervertebral disk extrusion and sequestration, nerve root compression, end plate abnormalities, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints in asymptomatic volunteers. Radiology 1998 ; 209 : 661-6.