title: Two-level total lumbar disc replacement.
abstract: Total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) has been widely used as a treatment option for 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. However, recent studies have presented conflicting results and some authors concluded that outcome deteriorated when disc replacement was performed bisegmentally, with an increase of complications for bisegmental replacements in comparison with monosegmental disc arthroplasty. The goal of the present retrospective study is to investigate results in a group of patients who have received bisegmental TDR with SB Charitè III artificial disc for degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years, and to compare the results of 2-level disc replacement versus 1-level patients treated with the same prosthesis. A total of 32 patients had at least 3-years follow-up and were reviewed. The average age of the patients was 38.5 years. There were 11 males and 21 females. About 16 patients received 2-level TDR (SB Charitè III) and 16 received 1-level TDR (SB Charitè III). Both radiographic and functional outcome analysis, including patient's satisfaction, was performed. There were no signs of degenerative changes of the adjacent segments in any case of the 2- or 1-level TDR. There was no statistically significant difference between 2- and 1-level TDR both at 12 months and at 3-years follow-up on functional outcome scores. There was a statistically insignificant difference concerning the patients satisfaction between 1- and 2-level surgeries at the last follow-up (P = 0.46). In the 2-level TDR patients, there were 5 minor complications (31.25%), whereas major complications occurred in 4 more patients (25%) and required a new surgery in 2 cases (12.5%). In the 1-level cases there were 2 minor complications (12.5%) and 2 major complications (12.5%) and a new revision surgery was required in 1 patient (6.25%). In conclusion, the use of 2-level disc replacement at last follow-up presented a higher incidence of complications than in cases with 1-level replacement. At the same time it was impossible to delineate a clear difference in evaluating the questionnaires between the follow-up results of patients receiving 2- and 1-level TDR: the 2-level group presented slightly lower scores at follow-up, but none was statistically significant.
authors.affiliation: Spine Surgery Department, Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, Bologna 40136, Italy. mario.disilvestre@ior.it
authors.forename: Mario
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Di Silvestre
authors.forename: Georgios
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Bakaloudis
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Lolli
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Vommaro
authors.forename: Patrizio
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Parisini
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001178:Arthroplasty / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D017586:Diskectomy / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007403:Intervertebral Disc / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D007405:Intervertebral Disc Displacement / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000209:etiology; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D019736:Prostheses and Implants / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011859:Radiography; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013995:Time; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome