Logo image
Back
Clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements

Ilona Punt, Paul Willems, Steven Kurtz, Lodewijk van Rhijn and André van Ooij
European spine journal, v 21(12), pp 2558-2564
2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2354-4
PMID: 22576159
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2354-4View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)CC BY V4.0,  Open

Abstract

Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neurosurgery Original Article Surgical Orthopedics
Purpose To compare mid-term clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for patients with failed SB Charité III total disc replacements (TDRs). Methods Eighteen patients with a failed TDR underwent posterolateral instrumented fusion (fusion group); in 21 patients, the TDR was removed and the intervertebral defect was filled with a bone strut graft, followed by an instrumented posterolateral fusion (removal group). Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were completed pre- and post-revision surgery. Intra- and post-operative complications of both revision strategies were assessed. Results Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0–6.4) in the removal group and 4.4 years (range 0.7–11.0) in the fusion group. Although the removal group showed a significantly lower VAS and ODI score post-revision surgery as compared to preoperative ( P  < 0.01 and P  = 0.01, respectively), no significant differences were found between the removal and fusion groups before and after revision surgery in VAS and ODI. A clinical relevant improvement in VAS and ODI was found in 47 and 21 % respectively in the removal group, and in 22 and 27 % respectively in the fusion group. Substantial complications were observed only in the removal group. Conclusions Both procedures showed improvement clinically. There were no significant additional benefits of removing the TDR as compared to fusion alone at mid-term follow-up. The clinical decision to remove the TDR should be carefully weighed up against potential risks and complications of this procedure.

Metrics

11 Record Views
9 citations in Web of Science
9 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Clinical Neurology
Orthopedics
Logo image