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 ArticleArticles

Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments

Svante Berg and Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2015, 9 49; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/2049
Svante Berg
1Stockholm Spine Center, Löwenströmska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
2Medical School, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Med stud.
  • 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
  • Fig. 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1

    Flowchart of included patients in groups A and B (n = number of patients, follow-up percentage) at 1-year follow-up. Numbers deviating in separate text boxes represent patients lost to follow-up. 1 = both patients lost to follow-up at one year answered the two-year follow-up questionnaire in group A. 2 = out of the patients lost to follow-up at one year in group B, 81 patients did not answer the two-year follow-up questionnaire.

  • Fig. 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2

    Flowchart of included patients in groups A and B (n = number of patients, follow-up percentage) at 2-year follow-up. Numbers deviating in separate text boxes represent patients lost to follow-up. 1One patient had not reached 2 years. Discrepancies in total numbers between initial patient selection and total numbers at two-year follow-up are due to patients who had not yet reached the two-year follow-up.

  • Fig. 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3

    Postoperative results reported with the GA score at one and two years. Outcome given as percentages of patients in each population stating a total relief of LBP (GA 1), much less LBP (GA 2), less LBP (GA 3), unchanged LBP (GA 4), and worsened LBP (GA 5). GA = global assessment of postoperative low back pain (LBP). Patients who reported a GA score of zero are not represented.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Demographics.

    Group BGroup Ap
    Total numbern = 700n = 30NA
    Mean age at operation date41 ± 9 (range 18-64)40 ± 9 (range 21-54)0.81
    Womenn = 354n = 120.25
    Menn = 346n = 180.25
    Preoperative smoking (percentage of group)n = 67 (9.5%)n = 4 (13%)0.47
    • Demographics of the included patients. P-values describe intergroup differences. Abbreviations: n = numerical value; NA = not applicable.

    • View popup
    Table 2
    Outcome measurementPreoperative
    Group BGroup A p
    VAS back pain60 ± 2061 ± 210.80
    VAS leg pain34 ± 2832 ± 260.72
    EQ-5D0.4 ± 0.30.3 ± 0.30.17
    SF-36 PCS40.0 ± 13.538.9 ± 11.50.65
    SF-36 MCS33.2 ± 9.133.0 ± 7.60.94
    ODI40 ± 1343 ± 120.23
    • Outcome measurement results preoperatively for group A and group B. Abbreviations: VAS = visual analogue scale; EQ-5D = European Quality of Life 5D; SF-36 PCS = 36-short form health survey, physical component summary; SF-36 MCS = 36-short form health survey, mental component summary; ODI = Oswestry disability index.

    • View popup
    Table 3
    Outcome measurementAt 1-year follow-up
    Group BGroup A p
    VAS back pain23 ± 2524 ± 280.95
    VAS leg pain16 ± 2416 ± 240.85
    EQ-5D0.7 ± 0.30.7 ± 0.30.72
    SF-36 PCS47.5 ± 12.444.2 ± 12.70.13
    SF-36 MCS45.1 ± 11.344.1 ± 12.00.79
    ODI18 ± 1720 ± 210.89
    • Outcome measurement results at 1-year follow-up for study group and control group. Abbreviations: VAS = visual analogue scale; EQ-5D = European Quality of Life 5D; SF-36 PCS = 36-short form health survey, physical component summary; SF-36 MCS = 36-short form health survey, mental component summary; ODI = Oswestry disability index.

    • View popup
    Table 4
    Outcome measurementAt 2-year follow-up
    Group BGroup A p
    VAS back pain22 ± 2631 ± 310.39
    VAS leg pain15 ± 2316 ± 250.92
    EQ-5D0.7 ± 0.30.7 ± 0.40.99
    SF-36 PCS48.2 ± 12.147.0 ± 14.70.82
    SF-36 MCS46.0 ± 10.943.4 ± 12.20.34
    ODI17 ± 1723 ± 220.21
    • Outcome measurement results at 2-year follow-up for study group and control group. Abbreviations: VAS = visual analogue scale; EQ-5D = European Quality of Life 5D; SF-36 PCS = 36-short form health survey, physical component summary; SF-36 MCS = 36-short form health survey, mental component summary; ODI = Oswestry disability index.

    • View popup
    Table 5
    Outcome measurementImprovement from baseline to 2-year follow-up
    Group BGroup A p
    VAS back pain37 ± 2832 ± 380.59
    ODI22 ± 1720 ± 220.66
    • Mean improvement from baseline to 2-year follow-up as reported with the VAS and ODI instruments. Abbreviations: VAS = visual analogue scale; ODI = Oswestry disability index.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 9
1 Jan 2015
  • 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.
Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments
(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
Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments
Svante Berg, Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2015, 9 49; DOI: 10.14444/2049

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments
Svante Berg, Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2015, 9 49; DOI: 10.14444/2049
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Computer Assisted Cobb Angle Measurements: A novel algorithm
  • Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up
  • A Comparison of Three Different Methods of Fixation in the Management of Thoracolumbar Fractures
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • register study
  • low back pain
  • disc degeneration
  • total disc replacement
  • three segments
  • treatment outcome

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