Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Part I: Rationale, Biomechanics, and Implant Types

The burden of disease regarding lumbar and cervical spine pain is a long-standing, pervasive problem within medicine that has yet to be resolved. Specifically, neck and back pain are associated with chronic pain, disability, and exorbitant health care use worldwide, which have only been exacerbated by the increase in overall life years and chronic disease. Traditionally, patients with significant pain and disability secondary to disease of either the cervical or lumbar spine are treated via fusion or discectomy. Although these interventions have proved curative in the short-term, numerous longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of traditional management have reported severe impairment of normal spinal range of motion, as well as postoperative complications, including neurologic injury, radiculopathy, osteolysis, subsidence, and infection, paired with less than desirable reoperation rates. Consequently, there is a call for innovation and improvement in the treatment of lumbar and cervical spine pain, which may be answered by a modern technique known as intervertebral disc arthroplasty, or total disc replacement (TDR). Thus, this review aims to describe the management strategy of TDR and to explore updated considerations for its use in practice, both to help guide clinical decision making.

Low back pain is the principal cause of long-term disability worldwide. We intend to address one of its main causes, degenerative disk disease, a spinal condition involving degradation of an intervertebral disk. Following unsuccessful conservative treatment, patients may be recommended for surgery. The two main surgical treatments for lumbar degenerative disk disease are lumbar fusion: traditional standard surgical treatment and lumbar disk arthroplasty, also known as lumbar total disk replacement. Lumbar fusion aims to relieve pain by fusing vertebrae together to eliminate movement at the joint, but it has been criticized for problems involving insignificant pain relief, a reduced range of motion, and an increased risk of adjacent segment degeneration. This leads to development of the lumbar total disk replacement technique, which aims to relieve pain replacing a degenerated intervertebral disk with a moveable prosthesis, thus mimicking the functional anatomy and biomechanics of a native intervertebral disk. Over the years a large range of prosthetic disks has been developed. The efficacy and current evidence for these prostheses are discussed in this review. The results of this study are intended to guide clinical practice and future lumbar total disk replacement device choice and design.

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages have been widely used during the past decade in patients with degenerative disorders of the cervical spine. Their radiolucency and low elastic modulus make them attractive attributes for spinal fusion compared with titanium and bone graft. Still, limitations are seen such as pseudoarthrosis, subsidence, and migration of the cages. Limited evidence on the clinical outcome of PEEK cages is found in the literature other than noncomparative cohort studies with only a few randomized controlled trials.

To assess the clinical and radiographic outcome of PEEK cages in the treatment of degenerative disc disorders and/or spondylolisthesis in the cervical spine.

Systematic review of all randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective nonrandomized comparative studies with a minimum follow-up of 6 months and all noncomparative cohort studies with a long-term follow-up of more than 5 years.

The primary outcome variable was clinical performance. Secondary outcome variables consisted of radiographic scores.

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. No conflict of interest reported. No funding received.

A total of 223 studies were identified, of which 10 studies were included. These comprised two randomized controlled trials, five prospective comparative trials, and three retrospective comparative trials.

Minimal evidence for better clinical and radiographic outcome is found for PEEK cages compared with bone grafts in the cervical spine. No differences were found between PEEK, titanium, and carbon fiber cages. Future studies are needed to improve methodology to minimize bias. Publication of lumbar interbody fusion studies needs to be promoted because differences in clinical and/or radiographic scores are more likely to be demonstrated in this part of the spine.

To review spine surgery management strategies for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) that has failed to respond to all nonsurgical treatment options.

Literature review was conducted for spine surgery in the treatment of CLBP without compressive anatomical disease. The main diagnosis identified was degenerated disc disease, and surgical options targeted for the treatment of CLBP were reviewed.

The history of current spine intervention for CLBP was reviewed, including various surgical options. Surgical treatment options for patients with CLBP include lumbar fusion, lumbar disc arthroplasty, and dynamic stabilization. Lumbar fusion remains the most frequent spine surgery performed for CLBP, but questions still exist regarding its efficacy in comparison with conservative care or interventional pain management. Lumbar disc arthroplasty and dynamic stabilization can both be considered only for select patients with CLBP, and their uses are currently limited.

Despite the number of spine surgeries that have been performed for CLBP, the surgical outcome still remains questionable. Until a precise identification of the cause of CLBP in any given patient can be precisely determined, surgical solutions will continue to be less than optimal.

This research was focused on the damping capacity study of two types of silicone rubbers proposed as layers within total lumbar disc prostheses of ball-and-socket model. In order to investigate the damping capacity, the two silicone rubber types mainly differing by the molecular mass of polymeric matrix and the filler content, as was emphasized by scanning electron microscopy and differential scanning calorimetry, were subjected to free vibration testing. Using an adapted experimental installation, three kinds of damping testing were realised: tests without samples and tests with three samples of each type of silicone rubber (69 ShA and 99 ShA). The free vibration tests were performed at a frequency of about 6 Hz using a weight of 11.8 kg. The relative damping coefficient was determined by measuring of two successive amplitudes on the vibrogram and calculating of the logarithmic decrement. The test results with silicone rubber samples showed a relative damping coefficient of 0.058 and respectively 0.077, whilst test results without samples showed a relative damping coefficient of 0.042. These silicone rubbers were found to have acceptable damping properties to be used as layers placed inside the prosthetic components.