Background According to published meta-analyses, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) seems to be superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in most clinical parameters. Despite short-term clinical success of CTDR, there are concerns regarding long-term durability of these prostheses. Methods This prospective study involved 382 patients who received standalone CTDR or a hybrid procedure (ACDF/CTDR). A retrospective comparison between different CTDR devices was conducted regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failure scenarios, and revision surgeries. The M6-C™ Artificial Cervical Disc (Orthofix, Lewisville, Texas) cohort was compared to the other CTDR devices clinically. Etiological reasons for revision, and the surgical technique of the revision was investigated. Results Fifty-three patients received M6-C CTDR. Eighteen patients (34%) were revised at an average of 67 months postoperatively for wear-induced osteolysis. There were three additional cases of pending revision. The PROMs of the two groups were similar, indicating that the failure mode (wear-induced osteolysis) is often asymptomatic. The demographics of the two groups were also similar, with more women undergoing revision surgery than men. There were three one-level CTDR, four two-level hybrids, seven three-level hybrids, and three four-level hybrids revised anteriorly. Sixteen patients underwent removal of the prosthesis and were treated according to the extent of osteolysis. There were four vertebrectomies, six revisions to ACDF, and six revisions to another CTDR. One patient underwent supplemental fixation using a posterior approach. The other CTDR cohort had an incidence of 3.3% at the equivalent time, and none of these were due to osteolysis or wear-related events. Conclusions There is a concerning midterm failure rate related to ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis in the M6-C. Patients implanted with the M6-C prosthesis should be contacted, informed, and clinically and radiologically assessed.

Background: Total disc replacement (TDR) has been shown to be effective for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) in carefully selected patients. Previous studies have demonstrated high rates of patient satisfaction and improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared with preoperative status but most have short-term follow-up or small cohort sizes only.Objective: The aim of this study is to report mid-to long-term PROMs from the treatment of symptomatic single-level lumbar DDD with TDR.Methods: Data collected prospectively concerning single-level TDR performed via an anterior approach were included for analysis. A preoperative assessment was obtained followed by postoperative follow-up assessments at 3, 6, and 12 months, and yearly follow-up thereafter. PROMs included patient satisfaction, visual analog score back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.Results: A total of 211 patients (118 men, 93 women) operated on between June 1997 and July 2015 were included in this study. Minimum follow-up was 4 years. The average age was 42.2 (range 24-87) years and median follow-up 96 interquartile range 72-132, range 48-120) months. The operative levels were L5-S1 (160, 75.8%) and L4-L5 (61, 24.2%). Both statistically and clinically significant improvements observed postoperatively were maintained at 10 years. In addition, 92% of patients reported either good (n = 29) or excellent satisfaction (n = 155) with treatment at final review.Conclusions: This study shows that single-level lumbar TDR used appropriately in selected patient results in clinically significant improvements in pain and function, well above the minimum clinically important difference, and good to excellent satisfaction in most patients. Further study to define long-term outcomes and survivorship is required.Clinical Relevance: Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements can be achieved by single-level lumbar TDR, in the treatment of single-level discogenic axial low back pain, with or without radiculopathy. These outcomes are sustained in the mid-to long-term followup periods.Level of Evidence: 4.

Background: The literature reports that index level (IL) revision spine surgery (RSS) and adjacent level (AL) RSS are diminished in lumbar TDR compared with fusion procedures. There is a paucity of PROMs reported after RSS.Objective: To present the incidence of RSS at the IL and AL following single-level lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) and to document patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) associated with RSS.Methods: PROMs and timelines were analyzed for 32 RSS patients from a prospective cohort study of 401 patients treated with TDR for single-level degenerative disc disease. The data collected prospectively are analyzed from baseline (prior to index surgery) to latest follow-up following RSS. PROMs, including visual analog scales for back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, were collected preoperatively; postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months; and annually thereafter until RSS. The time to RSS was recorded, and PROMs for RSS (IL, AL, or both) were documented, analyzed, and compared.Results: The median time to RSS in the IL cohort was 35 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 9-51 months). The median time to RSS cohort was 70 months (IQR = 41.3-105.3 months). Timepoints facilitate PROM discussion for RSS. Patients in both groups achieved thresholds for the minimum clinically important difference for pain and disability scores. The small sample size in each group contributed to the variability demonstrated by the 95% CIs, thereby cautioning definitive conclusions.Conclusions: This study reveals that statistically significant and modest clinical improvements in PROMs can be achieved in RSS for lumbar TDR at IL and AL. The surgical approach and technique are reflective of the pathology and suggest that anterior RSS for AL degeneration and posterior RSS for IL pathology yield similar results.Clinical Relevance: Statistical and clinical improvements can be achieved in IL-RSS and AL-RSS following single level TDR. It is essential for clinicians to understand and verify the underlying IL and/or AL pathology to select an appropriate management strategy and to facilitate balanced informed discussions with patients.Level of Evidence: 4.