Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

International Orthopaedics

Volumn 37, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1315-1325

  Wei, Jiangbo ^a   Song, Yueming ^a   Sun, Lin ^a   Lv, Chaoliang ^a  

^a SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTERIOR SPINE FUSION; ARTICLE; BLOOD VESSEL INJURY; BONE GRAFT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DEATH; DISK PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LUMBAR DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; META ANALYSIS; NERVE ROOT INJURY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RANGE OF MOTION; REOPERATION; SAFETY; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINE FUSION; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RISK FACTORS; SPINAL FUSION; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84879422369     PISSN: 03412695     EISSN: 14325195     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-1883-8     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. An H, Boden SD, Kang J et al (2003) Summary statement: emerging techniques for treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease. Spine 28:S24-S25
2. Booth DC, Bridwell KH, Eisenberg BA et al (1999) Minimum 5-year results of degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and instrumented posterior fusion. Spine 24:1721-1727
3. Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H et al (2003) A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine 28(13):1390-1395
4. Chou WY, Hsu CJ, Chang WN, Wong CY et al (2002) Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 122:39-43
5. Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A et al (2004) Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine 29:1535-1540
6. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS (2004) The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J 4:681-688
7. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 5: Correlation between radiographic and functional outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2:658-661
8. Sengupta DK, Mulholland RC (2005) Fulcrum assisted soft stabilization system: A new concept in the surgical treatment of degenerative low back pain. Spine 30:1019-1029
9. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali el-H et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite' artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 18:353-359
10. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K et al (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: Three-year results for different indications. Spine 31:1923-1932
11. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M (2002) Spine arthroplasty: A historical review. Eur Spine J 11:S65-S84
12. Ingalhalikar AV, Reddy CG et al (2009) 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 11(6):715-723
13. Weisskopf M, Ohnsorge JA, Martini F et al (2008) Influence of inlay height on motion characteristics of Iumbar segments in TDR. Orthop Unfall 146(4):452-457
14. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Hochschuler SH et al (2004) Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: Data from two TDR centers. Spine J 4:S252-S259
15. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S et al (2003) SB Charite' disc replacement: Report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:424-433
16. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN et al (2003) Lumbar spine arthroplasty: Early results using the ProDisc II: Aprospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:352-361
17. Shea B, Dube C, Moher D (2006) Assessing the quality of reports os systematic reviews: The Quorum statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing Group, London, pp 122-139
18. Higgins JPT, S (2011) Green "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
19. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C et al (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1929-1941
20. Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B et al (2009) TDR compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 18:1512-1519
21. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration TDR device exemptions study of lumbar TDR with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Part I: Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565-1575
22. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB (2005) Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar TDR: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36:301-313
23. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al (2007) Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration TDR device exemption study of the ProDisc-L TDR versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32:1155-1162
24. Delamarter BR, Zigler JE, Balderston RA et al (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration TDR device exemption study of the ProDisc-L TDR compared with circumferential fusion for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:705-715
25. Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF et al (2011) Lumbar disc arthroplasty with MAVERICK disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion. Spine 36(25):E1600-E1611
26. Jacobs WCH, van der Gaag NA et al (2013) Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: A Cochrane review. Spine 38(1):24-36
27. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ et al (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration TDR device exemption study of lumbar TDR with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Five-year follow-up. Spine J 9:374-386
28. Park C-K, Ryu K-S, Lee K-Y et al (2012) Clinical outcome of lumbar TDR using ProDisc-L in degenerative disc disease. Spine 37(8):672-677
29. Katsimihas M, Bailey CS, Issa K et al (2010) Prospective clinical and radiographic results of CHARITÉ III artificial total disc arthroplasty at 2- to 7-year follow-up: A Canadian experience. Can J Surg 53(6):408-4145
30. Zigler JE, Glenn J, Delamarter RB (2012) Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar TDR with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 10:19
31. David T (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: Minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32:661-666
32. Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV et al (2006) Charité total disc replacement - clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 15(2):183-195
33. Pimenta L, Díaz RC, Guerrero LG (2006) Charité lumbar artificial disc retrieval: Use of a lateral minimally invasive technique. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 5(6):556-561
34. Dickman CA, Yahiro MA, Lu HTC et al (1994) Surgical treatment alternatives for fixation of unstable fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. A meta-analysis. Spine 19:S2266-S2273
35. Haher TR, Merola A, Zpinick RI et al (1995) Meta-analysis of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A 35-year English literature review of 11,000 patients. Spine 20:1575-1584
36. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ et al (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of effects in controlled trails. JAMA 273(5):408-412