Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Multilevel Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Disc Disease.

Journal: Spine
Published:
Abstract

Methods: Case series OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to assess the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient satisfaction of multilevel lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) for symptomatic multilevel degenerative disc disease (MLDDD).

Background: TDA has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of symptomatic single level degenerative disc disease. There is minimal PROMs data on the mid- to long-term outcomes of multilevel TDA constructs.

Methods: Prospectively collected PROMs were analyzed from patients receiving multilevel TDA for symptomatic MLDDD. Data were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months, then yearly. PROMs included patient satisfaction, Visual Analog Score back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Results: One hundred twenty-two patients (77 men, 45 women) who had preoperative and at least 24-month follow-up data were included. The average age was 42 ± 8.2 years (range 21-61) and mean follow-up 7.8 years (range 2-10). The majority received two-level TDA, except two patients (1.6%) who received three-level TDA. The two- to three-level TDA's were at the levels L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1, whereas most two levels (n = 110, 90.2%) were at L4-5 and L5-S1; the remainder (n = 10, 8.2%) being at L3-4 and L4-5. Implants used were Charité (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA) in 119 patients (240 levels) and InMotion (DePuy Spine) in 3 patients (6 levels). Improvement in pain and disability scores were both clinically and statistically significant (P < 0.001), and this improvement was sustained in those patients over the course of their follow-up. Ninety-two percent of patients reported good or excellent satisfaction with treatment at final review.

Conclusions: Multilevel TDA constructs for MLDDD demonstrate favorable and sustained clinical outcomes at mid- to long-term follow-up. Methods: 4.