Chapter 167 Total Disc Arthroplasty
Associated Complications
Total disc replacement (TDR) is a relatively new procedure and thus reported complication rates are highly variable. Complications associated with TDR can be divided into three distinct groups. The first group involves surgical approach–related complications. These include vascular injuries, injuries to nerve roots, and retrograde ejaculation due to injury to the presacral sympathetic plexus. In general, the incidence of surgical approach–related complications ranges from 2.1% to 18.7%.1 The second group includes implant-related complications. These may be divided further into short- and long-tem complications. Short-term complications include implant subsidence, migration, and displacement and vertebral end-plate fractures. There is a paucity of long-term data on the performance of TDR implants. In addition, these data reflect the first generation of implants that have since been replaced by newer, improved discs. Hence, many long-term complications are not well documented. These may include the effect of wear debris and of increased range of motion of the facet joint and adjacent segment. The overall incidence of short-term implant-related complications ranges from 2.9% to 39.3%.1 The third group represents general complications such as infection, wound complications, persistent pain, and other adverse events related to surgical treatment. The incidence of these complications ranges from 1% to 14%.1 Another method to assess the safety of the new procedure is to determine reoperation rates at the index level. Available literature suggests that reoperation rates for TDR range from 1% to 28.6%.1
The results of several randomized controlled trials have been published recently. In the Charité trial, Blumenthal et al. reported overall 2-year complication rates for patients undergoing TDR or fusion of 29.1% and 50.2%, respectively.2 The authors also reported that 11 patients (5.4%) in the TDR group and 9 patients (9.1%) in the fusion group underwent reoperation at the index level. McAfee et al. reported similar findings for the Charité TDR. In their report, 6.3% of TDR patients and 10.1% of fusion patients required reoperation at the index level.3 Van den Eerenbeemt et al. compared reported complication rates from Charité TDR studies with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports.1 They found significant discrepancies in reported rates. In their report, 16 Charité patients (9.1%) experienced an approach-related complication (retrograde ejaculation), 8 patients (3.9%) had implant-related complications, and 33 patients (16.1%) had general surgery–related complications. In the fusion group, 9 patients (12.8%) reported retrograde ejaculation, 10 patients (10.1%) had implant-related complications, and 27 patients (27.2%) had general surgery–related complications. Geisler et al. analyzed a subgroup of patients from a Charité investigational device exemption study,4 focusing on patients with neurologic complications. The incidence of neurologic complications was no higher in patients with the Charité TDR (16.6%) than in patients with Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) fusion (17.2%; P = .3). Zigler et al. reported the FDA randomized trial comparing the ProDisc-L artificial disc with circumferential fusion.5 In this study, the overall complication rates were 7.3% for the ProDisc-L group and 6.3% for the circumferential fusion group. Reoperation at the index level was necessary for 3.7% of ProDisc-L patients and 5.4% of fusion patients. Van den Eerenbeemt et al. also analyzed the ProDisc-L trial and FDA reports.1 Their findings suggest that 2.4% of ProDisc-L recipients experienced retrograde ejaculation, 3.1% reported implant-related complications, and 1.8% had general surgical complications. In the fusion group, two patients (2.5%) had retrograde ejaculation; there were no implant- or approach-related complications. Three patients (3.8%) reported general surgery–related complications. Most recently, Sasso et al. reported initial results from the FlexiCore randomized study. They reported an overall rate of complications of 22.7% in the TDR group and 43.5% in the fusion group.6 Of 44 FlexiCore patients, 5 (11.4%) required reoperation. In the control group, 6 of 23 patients (26.1%) required reoperation.
Van Ooij et al. reported their experience with 75 patients with suboptimal outcomes after implantation of the Charité prosthesis.7–9 They found subsidence in 39 patients, an improperly sized prosthesis (too small) in 24 patients, adjacent disc degeneration in 36 patients, degenerative scoliosis in 11 patients, facet joint degeneration on CT scan in 25 patients, ventral implant migration in 6 patients, dorsal migration in 2 patients, metal wire breakage in 10 patients, wear and severe osteolysis in 6 patients, and subluxation of the device’s polyethylene core in 1 patient. Of the 75 patients, 46 required one or more salvage surgeries to address these problems. Daxle et al. collected perioperative morbidity data for 66 patients after TDR.10 They reported a 9% incidence of general surgical complications (e.g., urinary tract infection, wound infection). Four patients (6%) had significant blood loss (>1500 mL) during the surgery, one patient (1.5%) had major vascular injury, and one (1.5%) had a dural tear with subsequent epidural infection. Brau et al. analyzed the incidence of major vascular injury in 1315 consecutive patients undergoing ventral lumbar surgery.11 Of these patients, 6 were identified with left iliac artery thrombosis (0.45%) and 19 (1.4%) had major vein laceration. The authors concluded that the incidence of major vascular injuries is relatively low (25/1315, or 1.9%).
Blumenthal S., McAfee P.C., Guyer R.D., et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion. Part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1565-1575.
Kurtz S.M., van Ooij A., Ross R., et al. Polyethylene wear and rim fracture in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2007;7:12-21.
Sasso R.C., Foulk D.M., Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:123-131.
van Ooij A., Schurink G.W., Oner F.C., et al. Findings in 67 patients with recurrent or persistent symptoms after implantation of a disc prosthesis for low back pain. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007;151:1577-1584.
Zigler J., Delamarter R., Spivak J.M., et al. Results of prospective randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1155-1163.

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

