Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Orthopedic Reviews logoLink to Orthopedic Reviews
. 2024 Apr 30;16:116900. doi: 10.52965/001c.116900

Lumbar Disc Replacement Versus Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of Complications and Clinical Outcomes

Mohammad Daher 1, Joseph Nassar 1, Mariah Balmaceno-Criss 1, Bassel G Diebo 1, Alan H Daniels 1
PMCID: PMC11062800  PMID: 38699079

Abstract

Background

Lumbar spinal fusion is a commonly performed operation with relatively high complication and revision surgery rates. Lumbar disc replacement is less commonly performed but may have some benefits over spinal fusion. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of lumbar disc replacement (LDR) versus interbody fusion (IBF), assessing their comparative safety and effectiveness in treating lumbar DDD.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-2) were searched up until February 2024. The studied outcomes included operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, reoperations, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain.

Results

Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which six were randomized controlled trials, three were retrospective studies, and one was a prospective study. A total of 1720 patients were included, with 1034 undergoing LDR and 686 undergoing IBF. No statistically significant differences were observed in OR time, EBL, or LOS between the LDR and IBF groups. The analysis also showed no significant differences in the rates of complications, reoperations, and leg pain between the two groups. However, the LDR group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in mean back pain (p=0.04) compared to the IBF group.

Conclusion

Both LDR and IBF procedures offer similar results in managing CLBP, considering OR time, EBL, LOS, complication rates, reoperations, and leg pain, with slight superiority of back pain improvement in LDR. This study supports the use of both procedures in managing degenerative spinal disease.

Keywords: Lumbar disc replacement, interbody fusion, chronic lower back pain, degenerative disc disease

1. Introduction

Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) represents a significant global health issue, characterized by its high prevalence, debilitating effects, and considerable economic impact.1,2 In fact, CLBP is estimated to affect approximately 28% of adults in the United States annually and 90% at some point in their lives, imposing a financial burden of over $300 billion on the healthcare system.3,4 The primary cause of CLBP in adults is often attributed to Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD), with surgery being the recommended option when conservative treatments fail.5–7 Among the various surgical interventions for CLBP associated with DDD, spinal fusion has traditionally been considered the gold standard.8–10 However, this technique has been criticized for its high rates of perioperative complications, lengthy recovery times, and the potential risk of accelerating degeneration in adjacent spinal segments, potentially leading to further pain and disability. In fact, clinical success rates stand at only 51% for patients at the 5-year follow-up.11–14

For decades, total joint replacement has been recognized as an effective and proven option for treating chronic pain resulting from degenerative conditions in the hips, knees, and shoulders.13 More recently, total disc replacement (TDR) has emerged as a solution for disc degeneration, gaining popularity in numerous healthcare settings as a promising alternative to fusion for treating CLBP.15,16 TDR is proported for its potential to shorten recovery periods and reduce the likelihood of adjacent segment degeneration, which could, in turn, lessen the need for revision surgeries.11 Nevertheless, the development of effective spinal joint replacements has faced several hurdles. These challenges range from the necessity of creating biomechanically reliable and enduring prostheses to addressing the considerable anatomical changes accompanying spinal degeneration.13 While TDR has demonstrated potential in alleviating pain, reducing disability, and decreasing work absences in cases of cervical DDD, outcomes for the lumbar spine remain a subject of debate.2,3 This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of lumbar disc replacement (LDR) versus interbody fusion (IBF), providing a comprehensive overview of their impact on patient care.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Search strategy

Following the PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up until February 2024. The following keywords and Boolean terms “lumbar”, “interbody”, “IBF”, “arthroplasty”, and “replacement” were utilized to find articles comparing lumbar IBF to LDR. Supplementary articles were added by going through reference lists from articles and Internet searches. One author extracted the data and another confirmed the choice of the included articles. The process is summarized in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for article selection process.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Articles were included if they consisted of comparative studies, comparing IBF to LDR. Articles were excluded if they were non-comparative, or based on national databases (in order to avoid an overlap of patients).17–20

2.2. Data extraction

Eligibility of the included studies were determined by two reviewers independently. Extracted data consisted of surgery related outcomes (operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay (LOS)), adverse events (complications, and reoperations), and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry disability index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain). If present, differences between the investigators were resolved by a third independent reviewer.

2.3. Risk of bias assessment

The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included non-randomized studies by two authors independently.21 Studies were excluded if they had a critical risk of bias. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used in a similar manner to assess the risk of bias for randomized studies.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was implemented for the statistical analysis. Mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI were used for continuous data while odds ratio (OR) was utilized for dichotomous data. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Q tests and I2 statistics. In considerable heterogeneity indicated by p ≤ 0.05 or I2> 50%, random-effects model was used. On the other hand, the fixed-effect model was chosen if p > 0.05 or I2 < 50%. A statistically significant result is shown by p=0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the included studies

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria with 6 being randomized controlled trials (4 different trials and 2 reporting different outcomes of similar included trials22–25) 3 retrospectives and 1 prospective, and were included in the meta-analysis.13,22–30 These studies included 1720 patients with 1034 being in the LDR group and 686 being in the IBF group. The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.

Author Methods Participants Interbody fusion Age (years) Follow-up
LDR IBF LDR IBF
Sielatycki et al. 2021 Retrospective 53 156 Transforaminal 53.0 58.0 1 year
Berg et al. 2009 Randomized controlled trial 80 72 Posterior/
Posterolateral		 - 2 years
Blumenthal et al. 2005 Randomized controlled trial 205 99 Anterior 39.6 2 years
Coric et al. 2023 Randomized controlled trial 170 79 Transforaminal 63.3 64.2 2 years
Fritzell et al. 2011 Randomized controlled trial 80 72 Posterior/
Posterolateral		 - 2 years
Geisler et al. 2008 Randomized controlled trial 205 99 Anterior 39.6 2 years
Gornett et al. 2011 Randomized controlled trial 405 172 Anterior 40 40.2 2 years
Lee et al. 2015 Retrospective 54 20 Transforaminal 34 52 5 years
Mattei et al. 2017 Retrospective 30 50 Anterior 40.5 45.3 1 year
Stubig et al. 2018 Prospective 37 38 Anterior/
Transforaminal		 45.5 39.5 2 years
Open in a new tab

3.2. Surgery related outcomes

Five studies including 1491 patients reported data about OR time (913 in the LDR group and 578 in the IBF group), five studies including 1419 patients reported data about EBL (863 in the LDR group and 556 in the IBF group) and four studies including 1282 patients reported data about LOS (860 in the LDR group and 422 in the IBF group). No statistically significant difference was seen in OR time (Mean Difference=-0.04; 95% CI: -19.80–19.73, p=1.00, Figure 2A), EBL (Standardized Mean Difference=0.09; 95% CI: -0.25– 0.42, p=0.60, Figure 2B), or LOS (Mean Difference=-0.56; 95% CI: -1.22– 0.11, p=0.10, Figure 2C).

Figure 2A. Forest plot showing the difference in OR time.

Figure 2A.

Open in a new tab

Figure 2B. Forest plot showing the difference in EBL.

Figure 2B.

Open in a new tab

Figure 2C. Forest plot showing the difference in LOS.

Figure 2C.

Open in a new tab

3.3 Adverse Events

3.3.1. Complications

Six studies including 1545 patients reported data about complications (947 in the LDR group and 598 in the IBF group). No statistically significant difference was seen in the rate of complications (Odds Ratio=1.02; 95% CI: 0.73– 1.43, p=0.90, Figure 3A).

Figure 3A. Forest plot showing the difference in the rate of complications.

Figure 3A.

Open in a new tab

3.3.2. Reoperations

Four studies including 1052 patients reported data about the rate of reoperations (709 in the LDR group and 343 in the IBF group). No statistically significant difference was seen in the rate of reoperations (Odds Ratio=0.56; 95% CI: 0.23– 1.34, p=0.19, Figure 3B).

Figure 3B. Forest plot showing the difference the rate of reoperations.

Figure 3B.

Open in a new tab

3.4. PROMs

3.4.1. ODI

Five studies including 1093 patients reported data about ODI (605 in the LDR group and 488 in the IBF group). No statistically significant difference was seen in ODI (Mean Difference=–11.46; 95% CI: -24.52– 1.59, p=0.09, Figure 4A).

Figure 4A. Forest plot showing the difference in ODI.

Figure 4A.

Open in a new tab

3.4.2. Pain

Five studies including 1093 patients reported data about back pain (605 in the LDR group and 488 in the IBF group), and three studies including 861 patients reported data about leg pain (495 in the LDR group and 366 in the IBF group). Patients in the LDR group had a lower mean back pain (Mean Difference=-6.95; 95% CI: -13.50– -0.40, p=0.04, Figure 4B), but no difference in leg pain (Mean Difference=-0.28; 95% CI: -1.94–1.27, p=0.74, Figure 4C) when compared to the IBF group.

Figure 4B. Forest plot showing the difference in back pain.

Figure 4B.

Open in a new tab
Figure 4C. Forest plot showing the difference in leg pain.

Figure 4C.

Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

This meta-analysis examining 6 studies with 1720 patients revealed no difference in EBL, LOS, OR time, ODI, leg pain, complications, and reoperations between TDR and lumbar spinal fusion. However, lower back pain scores were shown in the LDR group.

When examining OR time, EBL, or LOS, no statistically significant difference was found between TDR and IBF. In fact, the absence of difference in OR time is in line with the statistical similarity for EBL31 and align with the findings of a previous meta-analysis by Mu et al. comparing LDR to anterior lumbar interbody fusion.32 Nevertheless, in their meta-analysis, they reported a reduced LOS in the LDR group.32 However, not only did they have only 3 studies in their LOS analysis, but two of the three studies reported data about overlapping patients making their results not valid.23,33

The absence of statistically significant difference in overall complications and reoperations between LDR and IBF aligned with the findings of Mu et al.32 However, Annette et al. favored LDR as it showed a reduced rate of complications.34 Nevertheless, our analysis included 6 studies compared to only 2 studies in both of their analysis making our results more valid. Similarly for the reoperation analysis, Mu et al. included only two studies while our analysis included 4.32

Despite the absence of statistically significant difference in leg pain and ODI, LDR was shown to reduce back pain. This reduction of pain (6.95, Figure 4B) exceeded the minimal clinically important difference being around 3.5 on a scale of 0-10.35 However, one must note that when taken separately, back pain at 1 year follow-up (Figure 5A) and 2-year follow-up (Figure 5B) did not differ significantly between LDR and IBF. Both Annette et al. and Mu et al. reported lower back pain and ODI in LDR.32,34 However, Annette et al. only included 2 studies in their analysis while Mu et al. included three studies, but with different follow-up timepoints (2 studies had 2-year follow-up and one study had 1-year follow-up).32,34

Figure 5A. Forest plot showing the difference in back pain at 1-year follow-up.

Figure 5A.

Open in a new tab

Figure 5B. Forest plot showing the difference back pain at 2-year follow-up.

Figure 5B.

Open in a new tab

Strengths and limitations

The main limitation of this study are the absence of post-operative sagittal radiographic parameters and cost analysis. Furthermore, a sub-analysis based on the type of interbody fusion was not possible due to the low number of studies assessing a similar IBF approach. Nevertheless, this study included an extensive literature review leading to an inclusion of a substantial number of studies.

5. Conclusion

The findings of this meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in OR time, EBL, LOS, rates of complications, reoperations, and leg pain between the LDR and IBF procedures. However, LDR was associated with a significant reduction in mean back pain, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, suggesting a potential advantage in terms of pain management. Nevertheless, this reduction in back pain was not significant when stratified by follow-up timepoints and may be due to an absence of deformity and disc degeneration at other levels. Consequently, this study supports the use of both LDR and IBF as effective treatments for CLBP.

Corresponding Author

Alan H. Daniels, MD

1 Kettle Point Ave

East Providence, RI 02914

Email: alandanielsmd@gmail.com

Disclosures and Funding

BGD reports the following: receives consulting fees from Clariance, SpineArt, and SpineVision. AHD discloses the following, receives royalties from Spineart and Stryker, consulting fees from Medtornic, research support from Alphatec, Medtronic, and Orthofix, and Fellowship support from Medtronic.

The rest of the authors do not report any conflicts.

Funding Statement

None.

References

  1. Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. Pengel L. H. M., Herbert R. D., Maher C. G., Refshauge K. M. 2003BMJ. 327(7410):323. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7410.323. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7410.323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Efficacy of virtual reality to reduce chronic low back pain: Proof-of-concept of a non-pharmacological approach on pain, quality of life, neuropsychological and functional outcome. Alemanno F., Houdayer E., Emedoli D.., et al. 2019PLoS One. 14(5):e0216858. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216858. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Feasibility and Safety of a Virtual Reality Dodgeball Intervention for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Thomas J.S., France C.R., Applegate M.E., Leitkam S.T., Walkowski S. 2016J pain. 17(12):1302–1317. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.08.011. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.08.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. A multicenter feasibility randomized controlled trial using a virtual reality application of pain neuroscience education for adults with chronic low back pain. McConnell R., Lane E., Webb G., LaPeze D., Grillo H., Fritz J. 2024Ann Med. 56(1):2311846. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2311846. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2311846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. Fritzell P., Hägg O., Wessberg P., Nordwall A., Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group 2001Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(23):2521–2532. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Summary statement: emerging techniques for treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease. An H., Boden S.D., Kang J., Sandhu H.S., Abdu W., Weinstein J. 2003Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(15 Suppl):S24–S25. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000076894.33269.19. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000076894.33269.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. van Tulder M. W., Koes B., Seitsalo S., Malmivaara A. 2006Eur Spine J. 15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S82–92. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1049-5. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-1049-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. The current state of cervical and lumbar spinal disc arthroplasty. Orr R.D., Postak P.D., Rosca M., Greenwald A.S. 2007J Bone Joint Surg Am. 89 Suppl 3:70–75. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00396. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using banana-shaped and straight cages: meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Sebaaly A., Kreichati G., Tarchichi J., Kharrat K., Daher M. 2023Eur Spine J. 32(9):3158–3166. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07797-z. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07797-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Approaches in Anterior Column Support in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Metaanalysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes. Daher M., Kreichati G., Aoun M., Riouallon G., Kharrat K., Sebaaly A. Nov 24;2023 World Neurosurg. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.11.094. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior-Posterior Interbody Fusion in the Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Junction: A Cost Analysis. Stubig T., Ahmed M., Ghasemi A., Nasto L. A., Grevitt M. 2018Glob spine J. 8(2):129–136. doi: 10.1177/2192568217713009. doi: 10.1177/2192568217713009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. Fairbank J., Frost H., Wilson-MacDonald J., et al. 2005BMJ. 330(7502):1233. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38441.620417.8F. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38441.620417.8F. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clinical Outcomes of Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. Mattei T. A., Beer J., Teles A. R., Rehman A. A., Aldag J., Dinh D. 2017Glob Spine J. 7(5):452–459. doi: 10.1177/2192568217712714. doi: 10.1177/2192568217712714. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lumbar spinal arthroplasty: analysis of one center’s twenty best and twenty worst clinical outcomes. Guyer R. D., Siddiqui S., Zigler J. E.., et al. 2008Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(23):2566–2569. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318185941a. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318185941a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Le Huec J. C., Mathews H., Basso Y.., et al. 2005Orthop Clin North Am. 36(3):315–322. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.001. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. Lemaire J.P., Carrier H., Sariali E. hadi, Skalli W., Lavaste F. 2005J Spinal Disord Tech. 18(4):353–359. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000172361.07479.6b. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000172361.07479.6b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lumbar Arthroplasty Is Associated With a Lower Incidence of Adjacent Segment Disease Compared With ALIF: A Propensity-matched Analysis. Shukla G.G., Wu A., Matur A.V.., et al. 2023Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 48(14):978–983. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004668. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior interbody fusion in the lumbar spine have relatively a few differences in readmission and short-term adverse events. Shultz B. N., Wilson A. T., Ondeck N. T.., et al. 2018Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(1):E52–E59. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002337. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Comparison of value per operative time between anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lumbar disc arthroplasty: A propensity score-matched analysis. Song J., Katz A., Ngan A.., et al. 2022J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 13(4):427–431. doi: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_99_22. doi: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_99_22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Outcomes of patients undergoing single-level arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Khalid S.I., Deysher D., Thompson K.., et al. 2023Acta Neurochir (Wien) 165(7):1915–1921. doi: 10.1007/s00701-023-05616-4. doi: 10.1007/s00701-023-05616-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Sterne J. A., Hernán M. A., Reeves B. C.., et al. Oct 12;2016 BMJ. :i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉtrade; artificial disc versus lumbar fusion. Blumenthal S., McAfee P.C., Guyer R.D.., et al. 2005Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1576–1583. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170561.25636.1c. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170561.25636.1c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Cha. Geisler F. H., Blumenthal S. L., Guyer R. D.., et al. 2008J Neurosurg Spine. 8(2):115–120. doi: 10.3171/SPI/2008/8/2/115. doi: 10.3171/SPI/2008/8/2/115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sex life and sexual function in men and women before and after total disc replacement compared with posterior lumbar fusion. Berg S., Fritzell P., Tropp H. 2009Spine J. 9(12):987–994. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.454. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: Randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Fritzell P., Berg S., Borgström F., Tullberg T., Tropp H. 2011Eur Spine J. 20(7):1001–1011. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1607-3. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1607-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. A novel lumbar total joint replacement may be an improvement over fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions: a comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes at one year. Sielatycki Alex J., Devin C.J., Pennings J.., et al. 2021Spine J. 21(5):829–840. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.12.001. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Prospective, randomized controlled multicenter study of posterior lumbar facet arthroplasty for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Coric D., Nassr A., Kim P.K.., et al. 2023J Neurosurg Spine. 38(1):115–125. doi: 10.3171/2022.7.SPINE22536. doi: 10.3171/2022.7.SPINE22536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lumbar disc arthroplasty with MAVERICK disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Gornet M.F., Burkus J.K., Dryer R.F., Peloza J.H. 2011Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(25):1600–1611. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318217668f. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318217668f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior-Posterior Interbody Fusion in the Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Junction: A Cost Analysis. Stubig T., Ahmed M., Ghasemi A., Nasto L. A., Grevitt M. 2018Glob Spine J. 8(2):129–136. doi: 10.1177/2192568217713009. doi: 10.1177/2192568217713009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Clinical outcomes of single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population. Lee W.T., Liu G., Thambiah J., Wong H.K. 2015Singapore Med J. 56(4):208–211. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2015032. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2015032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. The Case for Operative Efficiency in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Impact of Operative Time on Complications, Length of Stay, Alignment, Fusion Rates, and Patient Reported Outcomes. Daniels A. H., Daher M., Singh M.., et al. Nov 9;2023 Spine (Phila Pa 1976) doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004873. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004873. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. The short-term efficacy and safety of artificial total disc replacement for selected patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion : A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mu X., Wei J., Jiancuo A., Li Z., Ou Y. 2018:1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉTM artificial disc versus lumbar fusion - Part I: Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Blumenthal S., McAfee P.C., Guyer R.D.., et al. 2005Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14):1565–1575. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Advanced meta - analyses comparing the three surgical techniques total disc replacement , anterior stand - alone fusion and circumferential fusion regarding pain , function and complications up to 3 years to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease. Annette S., Lang J., Bohn T.., et al. 2021Eur Spine J. 30(12):3688–3701. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06784-6. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06784-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Establishing Minimum Clinically Important Difference Thresholds for Physical Function and Pain in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Nie J. W., Hartman T. J., Zheng E.., et al. 2023World Neurosurg. 175:e352–e360. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.03.087. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.03.087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Orthopedic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

RESOURCES