Comparison of total disc replacement with lumbar fusion: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 60-67

  Nie, Hongfei ^a   Chen, Guo ^a   Wang, Xiandi ^a   Zeng, Jiancheng ^a  

^a SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Degenerative disc disease; Lumbar fusion; Re operation rate; Total disc replacement (TDR)

Indexed keywords

NARCOTIC AGENT;

COCHRANE LIBRARY; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; DISK PROSTHESIS; EMBASE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFECTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LOW BACK PAIN; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; NERVE ROOT INJURY; NERVOUS SYSTEM INJURY; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RANGE OF MOTION; REOPERATION; REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; SPINAL FUSION; TOTAL DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84921505310     PISSN: 1022386X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Hochschuler SH, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL. Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine J 2002; 11:S106-10.
2. Frymoyer JW, editor. The adult spine: principles and practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.
3. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2001; 26:2521-32; discussion 32-4.
4. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 2006; 296:2441-50.
5. Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated cochrane review. Spine 2005; 30:2312-20.
6. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter food and drug administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 2005; 30:1565-75; discussion E387-91.
7. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A:1497-503.
8. Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Tim Yoon S, Minamide A, Su Kim K, Tomita K, et al. Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 2003; 28:1560-6.
9. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB. Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 2005; 36: 301-13.
10. Bono CM, Garfin SR. History and evolution of disc replacement. Spine J 2004; 4:145S-50S.
11. Le Huec J, Basso Y, Mathews H, Mehbod A, Aunoble S, Friesem T, et al. The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study. Eur Spine J 2005; 14:480-6.
12. Dmitriev AE, Gill NW, Kuklo TR, Rosner MK. Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine J 2008; 8:918-25.
13. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO, Haider TT, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 2007; 32:1155-62; discussion 63.
14. Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine 2008; 33:123-31.
15. Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, Olerud C, Tropp H. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 1512-9.
16. Delamarter R, Zigler JE, Balderston RA, Cammisa FP, Goldstein JA, Spivak JM. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: results at twentyfour months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93:705-15.
17. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the Quorum statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in healthcare: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2006.p. 122-39.
18. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408-12.
19. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352:609-13.
20. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:982-9.
21. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315:629-34.
22. Yajun W, Yue Z, Xiuxin H, Cui C. A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2010; 19:1250-61.