A comparison of the long-term results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and total disc arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial with a mean follow-up of 14 years.
Michael Putzier, Jasmin Fussi, Thilo Khakzad, Chris Lindemann, Timo Karl Zippelius, Patrick Strube
{"title":"A comparison of the long-term results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and total disc arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial with a mean follow-up of 14 years.","authors":"Michael Putzier, Jasmin Fussi, Thilo Khakzad, Chris Lindemann, Timo Karl Zippelius, Patrick Strube","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.107B6.BJJ-2024-1646.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This prospective randomized study compares the clinical and radiological long-term outcomes of single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and total disc arthroplasty (TDA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with symptomatic single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) at L4/5 or L5/S1 were randomly assigned to groups ALIF or TDA. Clinical evaluations using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain were conducted preoperatively, at three, 12, and 24 months, and after a mean follow-up of 14 years (12.2 to 15.9). Radiological assessments included radiographs in two planes and flexion-extension views. Additionally, CT was performed in the ALIF group to evaluate fusion after 24 months. Complications and patient satisfaction were recorded. Outcomes were analyzed for the entire cohort and by spinal segment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 120 patients included (60 per group), 28 were lost to follow-up, including three excluded because of revision surgery. In the remaining patients, significant improvements in ODI and VAS were seen over time (all p < 0.001). Clinical scores had declined slightly by final follow-up but remained better than the preoperative levels. No significant overall differences were found between ALIF and TDA. However, subgroup analysis revealed that ALIF outperformed TDA at L5/S1 (ODI posthoc test at final follow-up p = 0.005): outcomes were comparable at L4/5.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ALIF and TDA are safe and effective methods of treating single-level DDD. ALIF is preferable at L5/S1 due to biomechanical factors, such as variability in the centre of rotation and sagittal profile types, which have a negative impact on the outcomes of TDA at this level. Conversely, at L4/5, both procedures give comparable results. These findings emphasize the importance of considering segment-specific anatomical and biomechanical factors in surgical decision-making for DDD.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"107-B 6","pages":"639-648"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B6.BJJ-2024-1646.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: This prospective randomized study compares the clinical and radiological long-term outcomes of single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and total disc arthroplasty (TDA).
Methods: Patients with symptomatic single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD) at L4/5 or L5/S1 were randomly assigned to groups ALIF or TDA. Clinical evaluations using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain were conducted preoperatively, at three, 12, and 24 months, and after a mean follow-up of 14 years (12.2 to 15.9). Radiological assessments included radiographs in two planes and flexion-extension views. Additionally, CT was performed in the ALIF group to evaluate fusion after 24 months. Complications and patient satisfaction were recorded. Outcomes were analyzed for the entire cohort and by spinal segment.
Results: Of the 120 patients included (60 per group), 28 were lost to follow-up, including three excluded because of revision surgery. In the remaining patients, significant improvements in ODI and VAS were seen over time (all p < 0.001). Clinical scores had declined slightly by final follow-up but remained better than the preoperative levels. No significant overall differences were found between ALIF and TDA. However, subgroup analysis revealed that ALIF outperformed TDA at L5/S1 (ODI posthoc test at final follow-up p = 0.005): outcomes were comparable at L4/5.
Conclusion: Both ALIF and TDA are safe and effective methods of treating single-level DDD. ALIF is preferable at L5/S1 due to biomechanical factors, such as variability in the centre of rotation and sagittal profile types, which have a negative impact on the outcomes of TDA at this level. Conversely, at L4/5, both procedures give comparable results. These findings emphasize the importance of considering segment-specific anatomical and biomechanical factors in surgical decision-making for DDD.
期刊介绍：
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
