Cargando…
Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc
BACKGROUND: Previous reports of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) have described significant complications. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) study of the Charité artificial disc represents the first level I data comparison of TDR to fusion. METHODS:...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
RRY Publications, LLC
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0004-RR |
_version_ | 1782362240337313792 |
---|---|
author | Holt, Richard T. Majd, Mohammed E. Isaza, Jorge E. Blumenthal, Scott L. McAfee, Paul C. Guyer, Richard D. Hochschuler, Stephen H. Geisler, Fred H. Garcia, Rolando Regan, John J. |
author_facet | Holt, Richard T. Majd, Mohammed E. Isaza, Jorge E. Blumenthal, Scott L. McAfee, Paul C. Guyer, Richard D. Hochschuler, Stephen H. Geisler, Fred H. Garcia, Rolando Regan, John J. |
author_sort | Holt, Richard T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Previous reports of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) have described significant complications. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) study of the Charité artificial disc represents the first level I data comparison of TDR to fusion. METHODS: In the prospective, randomized, multicenter IDE study, patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio, with 205 patients in the Charité group and 99 patients in the control group (anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] with BAK cages). Inclusion criteria included confirmed single-level degenerative disc disease at L4-5 or L5-S1 and failure of nonoperative treatment for at least 6 months. Complications were reported throughout the study. RESULTS: The rate of approach-related complications was 9.8% in the investigational group and 10.1% in the control group. The rate of major neurological complications was similar between the 2 groups (investigational = 4.4%, control = 4.0%). There was a higher rate of superficial wound infection in the investigational group but no deep wound infections in either group. Pseudarthrosis occurred in 9.1% of control group patients. The rate of subsidence in the investigational group was 3.4%. The reoperation rate was 5.4% in the investigational group and 9.1% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications for lumbar TDR was similar to that of ALIF. Vigilance is necessary with respect to patient indications, training, and correct surgical technique to maintain TDR complications at the levels experienced in the IDE study. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4365564 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | RRY Publications, LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43655642015-03-23 Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc Holt, Richard T. Majd, Mohammed E. Isaza, Jorge E. Blumenthal, Scott L. McAfee, Paul C. Guyer, Richard D. Hochschuler, Stephen H. Geisler, Fred H. Garcia, Rolando Regan, John J. SAS J Full Length Article BACKGROUND: Previous reports of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) have described significant complications. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) study of the Charité artificial disc represents the first level I data comparison of TDR to fusion. METHODS: In the prospective, randomized, multicenter IDE study, patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio, with 205 patients in the Charité group and 99 patients in the control group (anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] with BAK cages). Inclusion criteria included confirmed single-level degenerative disc disease at L4-5 or L5-S1 and failure of nonoperative treatment for at least 6 months. Complications were reported throughout the study. RESULTS: The rate of approach-related complications was 9.8% in the investigational group and 10.1% in the control group. The rate of major neurological complications was similar between the 2 groups (investigational = 4.4%, control = 4.0%). There was a higher rate of superficial wound infection in the investigational group but no deep wound infections in either group. Pseudarthrosis occurred in 9.1% of control group patients. The rate of subsidence in the investigational group was 3.4%. The reoperation rate was 5.4% in the investigational group and 9.1% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications for lumbar TDR was similar to that of ALIF. Vigilance is necessary with respect to patient indications, training, and correct surgical technique to maintain TDR complications at the levels experienced in the IDE study. RRY Publications, LLC 2007-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4365564/ /pubmed/25802575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0004-RR Text en Copyright SAS - Spine Arthroplasty Society 2007 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Full Length Article Holt, Richard T. Majd, Mohammed E. Isaza, Jorge E. Blumenthal, Scott L. McAfee, Paul C. Guyer, Richard D. Hochschuler, Stephen H. Geisler, Fred H. Garcia, Rolando Regan, John J. Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc |
title | Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc |
title_full | Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc |
title_fullStr | Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc |
title_full_unstemmed | Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc |
title_short | Complications of Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Compared to Fusion: Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Charité Artificial Disc |
title_sort | complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement compared to fusion: results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter us food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of the charité artificial disc |
topic | Full Length Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0004-RR |
work_keys_str_mv | AT holtrichardt complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT majdmohammede complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT isazajorgee complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT blumenthalscottl complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT mcafeepaulc complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT guyerrichardd complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT hochschulerstephenh complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT geislerfredh complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT garciarolando complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc AT reganjohnj complicationsoflumbarartificialdiscreplacementcomparedtofusionresultsfromtheprospectiverandomizedmulticenterusfoodanddrugadministrationinvestigationaldeviceexemptionstudyofthechariteartificialdisc |