Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleTotal Disc Replacement

Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Index-Level and Adjacent-Level Revision Surgery Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes

Matthew Scott-Young, Laurence McEntee, Evelyne Rathbone, David Nielsen, Lauren Grierson and Wayne Hing
International Journal of Spine Surgery October 2022, 16 (5) 847-858; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8331
Matthew Scott-Young
1 Gold Coast Spine, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
2 Faculty of Health Science & Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
MBBS, FRACS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurence McEntee
2 Faculty of Health Science & Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
3 Gold Coast Private Hospital, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
BHB, MBChB, FRACS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evelyne Rathbone
2 Faculty of Health Science & Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
MSᴄ, CSᴛᴀᴛ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Nielsen
1 Gold Coast Spine, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
4 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cairns Hospital, Cairns North, QLD, Australia
MBBS, BBɪᴏᴍᴇᴅSᴄ, FRACS, FAOʀᴛhA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren Grierson
1 Gold Coast Spine, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
BSᴄ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wayne Hing
2 Faculty of Health Science & Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    (A) Preoperative magnetic resonance images, (B) preoperative postdiscography computed tomographic image, (C) postoperative radiograph, (D) 6-mo postoperative radiograph with spondylolisthesis, and (E) postoperative radiograph of index level revision, circumferential fusion.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    (A) Postoperative radiograph of index level L5-S1 total disc replacement (TDR) and (B) revision at adjacent level, L4-L5, with insertion of a TDR.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Time to index level revision spine surgery and final reported outcome score for each patient (n = 16). Patients 11 and 16 also had adjacent-level revision spine surgery. Patient 13 underwent revision surgery at another clinic.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Time to adjacent level revision spine surgery for clinical adjacent segment pathology, and final reported outcome score for each patient (n = 18). Patients 11 and 16 also had index-level revision spine surgery.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Mean change from baseline and 95% CI for visual analog scale (VAS) (0 = no pain to 100 = worst pain) back and leg pain scores at follow-up times after surgery. ASD = adjacent segment disease; T1 = first year after primary surgery; T2 = final year after primary surgery; T3 = first year after revision surgery; T4 = final year after revision surgery with reported outcome. Most mean scores were above the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    Mean change from baseline and 95% CI for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (0 = no disability to = 100 worst disability) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (0 = no disability to 24 = worst disability) at follow-up times after surgery. ASD = adjacent segment disease; T1 = first year after primary surgery; T2 = final year after primary surgery; T3 = first year after revision surgery; T4 = final year after revision surgery with reported outcome. Most mean scores were above the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Baseline characteristics of surgery patients (n = 32).

    CharacteristicIndex-Level RSS (n = 16a)Adjacent-Level RSS (n = 18a)
    Gender, n (%)
     Female10 (62.5)6 (33.3)
     Male6 (37.5)
    Age at the time of primary surgery, y, mean (SD)43.5 (13.7)36.9 (10.6)
    Index TDR level, n (%)
     L4-L52 (12.5)6 (33.3)
     L5-S114 (87.5)12 (66.6)
    Preoperative diagnosis, n (%)
     DDD (L4-L5)2 (12.5)5 (27.8)
     DDD (L5-S1)8 (50.0)8 (44.4)
     Internal disc disruption (L5-S1)1 (6.3)-
     DDD with herniation: no previous surgery (L4-L5)-1 (5.6)
     DDD with herniation: no previous surgery (L5-S1)4 (25)3 (16.7)
     Herniation: previous surgery (L5-S1)1 (6.3)1 (5.6)
    Time to RSS (mo), median (IQR)35 (9–51)70 (41.3–105.3)
    Time to final reported score, median (IQR)84.0 (54.0–108.0)132 (93.0–156.0)
    Type of revision, n (%)
     Anterior reconstruction (TDR/anterior lumbar interbody fusion)1 (6.2)14 (77.8)
     Posterior (fusion/decompression)15 (93.8)4 (22.2)
    Pain score,b median (IQR)
     VAS-back76.5 (63.0–92.5)82.0 (66.5–91.5)
     VAS-leg69.0 (14.0–85.0)55.5 (34.8–84.3)
    Disability score, median (IQR)
     Oswestry Disability Indexb 51.5 (42.5–57.5)46.0 (40.0–59.0)
     Roland-Morris Disability Questionnairec 18.0 (14.5–19.8)15.0 (14.0–18.5)
    • Abbreviations: DDD, degenerative disc disease; IQR, interquartile range; RSS, revision spine surgery; TDR, total disc replacement; VAS, visual analog scale.

    • Note: Data are presented as n (%), unless otherwise specified.

    • ↵a Two patients underwent both types of surgeries and are included in both groups.

    • ↵b Score ranged from 0 (none) to 100 (worst).

    • ↵c Score ranged from 0 (none) to 24 (worst).

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Types of RSS performed for IL-RSS and AL-RSS.

    RSS Group and SubgroupAnterior RSSPosterior RSS
    IL-RSS (n = 16)214
    FANone7 total
    • 6 PSF at IL

    • 1 PSF at L4-L5 IL, plus extension to pelvisa

    MigrationNone2 PSF at IL
    FA + migration2 r/o TDR+ ALIF (RRPA)
    • 1 r/o L5-S1 TDR+ ALIF, + PSF L3-S1a

    1 PSF at IL
    SubsidenceNone3 PSF at IL
    r/o IDSDN/A1 PSF at IL
    AL-RSS (n = 18)144
    IL TDR at L4-L55 total
    • 4 ALIF at L5-S1 (RRPA)

    • 1 TDR at L3-L4 (LrRPA)

    3 total
    • 1 discectomy at L5-S1

    • 1 PSF at L5-S1

    • 1 PSF at L4-L5 IL, plus extension to pelvisa

    IL TDR at L5-S19 total
    • 1 ALIF at S1-S2 (LrRPA)

    • 8 TDR at L4-L5 (LrRPA)

    1 posterior
    • 1 r/o L5-S1 TDR+ ALIF, plus PSF L3-S1a

    • Abbreviations: AL, adjacent level; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; FA, facet arthropathy; IDSD, interspinous dynamic stabilization device; IL, index level; LrRPA, left revision retroperitoneal approach; PSF, posterior spinal fusion; r/o, removal of; RRPA, right retroperitoneal approach; RSS, revision spine surgery; TDR, total disc replacement;

    • ↵a Patients underwent both AL-RSS and IL-RSS.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Change from baseline test results for VAS pain and ODI/RMDQ disability scores.

    Time Index Level Revision Spine Surgery Adjacent Level Revision Spine Surgery
     n  Mean Difference (95% CI) P Value n  Mean Difference (95% CI) P Value
    VAS-backb       
     T1 14 29.6 (12.2, 46.9) 0.003a  12 55.2 (39.0, 71.4)  <0.001a
     T2 14 22.6 (3.2, 41.9) 0.026 15 30.6 (11.1, 50.1) 0.005a
     T3 13 43.3 (26.6, 60.0)  <0.001a  14 46.3 (27.6, 65.0)  <0.001a
     T4 13 11.8 (−9.5, 33.1) 0.252 15 32.0 (12.0, 52.0) 0.004a
    VAS-legb       
     T1 13 33.5 (7.2, 59.8) 0.017 11 37.4 (12.7, 62.1) 0.007a
     T2 13 25.9 (1.2, 50.7) 0.042 12 17.5 (−11.2, 46.2) 0.207
     T3 12 41.4 (14.9, 67.9) 0.006a  11 24.5 (−0.4, 49.3) 0.053
     T4 12 20.0 (−17.7, 57.7) 0.267 12 23.3 (−0.8, 47.3) 0.057
    ODIb       
     T1 14 20.7 (11.5, 29.9)  <0.001a  13 27.1 (21.0, 33.2)  <0.001a
     T2 14 15.7 (7.4, 24.0) 0.001a  15 18.3 (8.7, 28.0) 0.001a
     T3 13 27.8 (17.6, 37.9)  <0.001a  14 20.9 (6.5, 35.2) 0.008a
     T4 13 18.6 (6.7, 30.5) 0.005a  15 14.9 (5.9, 24.0) 0.003a
    RMDQc       
     T1 14 8.3 (5.2, 11.4)  <0.001a  11 10.0 (6.8, 13.2)  <0.001a
     T2 14 4.9 (1.5, 8.3) 0.008a  15 6.9 (3.3, 10.4)  <0.001a
     T3 13 10.9 (7.6, 14.2)  <0.001a  14 7.8 (2.4, 13.1) 0.008a
     T4 13 7.8 (3.7, 11.8) 0.001a  15 6.9 (3.4, 10.5)  <0.001a
    • Abbreviations: ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; RMDQ, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; T1, first year after primary surgery; T2, final year after primary surgery; T3, first year after revision surgery; T4, final year after revision surgery with reported outcome; VAS, visual analog scale.

    • Note: A positive mean difference (change from baseline) denotes improvement in the outcome.

    • ↵a Statistical significance achieved when P < 0.013, after applying Bonferroni correction to multiple comparisons within each outcome.

    • ↵b Score ranged from 0 (none) to 100 (worst).

    • ↵c Score ranged from 0 (none) to 24 (worst).

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 16, Issue 5
1 Oct 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Index-Level and Adjacent-Level Revision Surgery Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Index-Level and Adjacent-Level Revision Surgery Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes
Matthew Scott-Young, Laurence McEntee, Evelyne Rathbone, David Nielsen, Lauren Grierson, Wayne Hing
International Journal of Spine Surgery Oct 2022, 16 (5) 847-858; DOI: 10.14444/8331

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Index-Level and Adjacent-Level Revision Surgery Incidence, Characteristics, and Outcomes
Matthew Scott-Young, Laurence McEntee, Evelyne Rathbone, David Nielsen, Lauren Grierson, Wayne Hing
International Journal of Spine Surgery Oct 2022, 16 (5) 847-858; DOI: 10.14444/8331
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Future of Arthroplasty in the Spine
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes
  • Anterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Radiculopathy After Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement: Technique Description and Case Report
Show more Total Disc Replacement

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • artificial disc
  • back pain
  • degenerative disc disease
  • motion preservation
  • total disc replacement
  • arthroplasty
  • long-term results
  • lumbar spine
  • revision
  • index level
  • adjacent segment

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire