Cargando…

Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion

BACKGROUND: Although total disc replacement has been performed for years outside the United States, relatively little available data address clinical outcomes, particularly data from prospective studies. We report the 24- to 36-month follow-up of one center's experience with the ProDisc-L artif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zigler, Jack E., Sachs, Barton L., Rashbaum, Ralph F., Ohnmeiss, Donna D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: RRY Publications, LLC 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0003-RR
_version_ 1782362242192244736
author Zigler, Jack E.
Sachs, Barton L.
Rashbaum, Ralph F.
Ohnmeiss, Donna D.
author_facet Zigler, Jack E.
Sachs, Barton L.
Rashbaum, Ralph F.
Ohnmeiss, Donna D.
author_sort Zigler, Jack E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although total disc replacement has been performed for years outside the United States, relatively little available data address clinical outcomes, particularly data from prospective studies. We report the 24- to 36-month follow-up of one center's experience with the ProDisc-L artificial disc as part of a prospective, randomized trial comparing total disc arthroplasty to combined anterior–posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS: The study involved clinical results for 157 patients from a single center enrolled in the US Food and Drug Administration–regulated trial comparing ProDisc-L to fusion. Only patients who had reached a minimum 24-month follow-up were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive total disc replacement or circumferential fusion at 1 or 2 lumbar disc levels from L3 to S1, with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks to 36 months postoperatively. The primary clinical outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores to assess pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to measure function. RESULTS: The VAS and ODI scores in both treatment groups improved significantly as early as the 6-week followup visit and remained significantly improved throughout the 36-month follow-up period. Although a tendency was observed for the ProDisc-L scores to indicate more favorable outcome, the differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of patients who would have the same procedure again was greater in the total disc replacement group at all follow-up intervals, and significantly greater at the 6- month, 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the total disc replacement with ProDisc-L produces improvements in pain and function that are at least as good as those provided by circumferential fusion. During the long-term follow-up of 24 and 36 months, outcomes did not become less favorable compared with the early outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We found that results of total disc replacement were at least as good as those achieved with combined instrumented anterior–posterior fusion for the treatment of painful disc degeneration. Favorable results were maintained during 24- and 36-month follow-up.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4365572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher RRY Publications, LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43655722015-03-23 Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion Zigler, Jack E. Sachs, Barton L. Rashbaum, Ralph F. Ohnmeiss, Donna D. SAS J Full Length Article BACKGROUND: Although total disc replacement has been performed for years outside the United States, relatively little available data address clinical outcomes, particularly data from prospective studies. We report the 24- to 36-month follow-up of one center's experience with the ProDisc-L artificial disc as part of a prospective, randomized trial comparing total disc arthroplasty to combined anterior–posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS: The study involved clinical results for 157 patients from a single center enrolled in the US Food and Drug Administration–regulated trial comparing ProDisc-L to fusion. Only patients who had reached a minimum 24-month follow-up were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive total disc replacement or circumferential fusion at 1 or 2 lumbar disc levels from L3 to S1, with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks to 36 months postoperatively. The primary clinical outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores to assess pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to measure function. RESULTS: The VAS and ODI scores in both treatment groups improved significantly as early as the 6-week followup visit and remained significantly improved throughout the 36-month follow-up period. Although a tendency was observed for the ProDisc-L scores to indicate more favorable outcome, the differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of patients who would have the same procedure again was greater in the total disc replacement group at all follow-up intervals, and significantly greater at the 6- month, 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the total disc replacement with ProDisc-L produces improvements in pain and function that are at least as good as those provided by circumferential fusion. During the long-term follow-up of 24 and 36 months, outcomes did not become less favorable compared with the early outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We found that results of total disc replacement were at least as good as those achieved with combined instrumented anterior–posterior fusion for the treatment of painful disc degeneration. Favorable results were maintained during 24- and 36-month follow-up. RRY Publications, LLC 2007-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4365572/ /pubmed/25802580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0003-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
Zigler, Jack E.
Sachs, Barton L.
Rashbaum, Ralph F.
Ohnmeiss, Donna D.
Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion
title Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion
title_full Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion
title_fullStr Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion
title_full_unstemmed Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion
title_short Two- to 3-Year Follow-Up of ProDisc-L: Results From a Prospective Randomized Trial of Arthroplasty Versus Fusion
title_sort two- to 3-year follow-up of prodisc-l: results from a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion
topic Full Length Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0003-RR
work_keys_str_mv AT ziglerjacke twoto3yearfollowupofprodisclresultsfromaprospectiverandomizedtrialofarthroplastyversusfusion
AT sachsbartonl twoto3yearfollowupofprodisclresultsfromaprospectiverandomizedtrialofarthroplastyversusfusion
AT rashbaumralphf twoto3yearfollowupofprodisclresultsfromaprospectiverandomizedtrialofarthroplastyversusfusion
AT ohnmeissdonnad twoto3yearfollowupofprodisclresultsfromaprospectiverandomizedtrialofarthroplastyversusfusion