Comparison of therapies in lumbar degenerative disc disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of total disc replacement, lumbar fusion, and conservative care in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Materials & methods: A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative impact of lumbar DDD therapies on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain score, patient satisfaction, employment status, and reoperation. Odds ratios or mean differences and 95% credible intervals were reported. Results: Six studies were included (1417 participants). Overall, the activL total disc replacement device had the most favorable results for ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction. Results for employment status and reoperation were similar across therapies. Conclusion: activL substantially improves ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with other therapies for single-level lumbar DDD.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Supplementary Material
File (supplementary material_patel.docx)
- Download
- 263.98 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Cihangiroglu M, Yildirim H, Bozgeyik Z et al. Observer variability based on the strength of MR scanners in the assessment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur. J. Radiol. 51(3), 202–208 (2004).
2.
An HS, Anderson PA, Haughton VM et al. Introduction: disc degeneration: summary. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(23), 2677–2678 (2004).
3.
Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Mclean RM, Forciea MA. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 166(7), 514–530 (2017).
4.
North American Spine Society. NASS coverage policy recommendations: lumbar fusion. May 2014 (2014).
5.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of safety and effectiveness data, activL artificial disc (2015). www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf12/P120024b.pdf.
6.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of safety and effectiveness data, PRODISC-L total disc replacement (2006). www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/P050010b.pdf.
7.
Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3, CD001352 (2005).
8.
Pan A, Hai Y, Yang J, Zhou L, Chen X, Guo H. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur. Spine J. 25(5), 1522–1532 (2016).
9.
Van Den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, Van Royen BJ, Peul WC, Van Tulder MW. Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Spine J. 19(8), 1262–1280 (2010).
10.
Kalakoti P, Missios S, Maiti T et al. Inpatient outcomes and postoperative complications after primary versus revision lumbar spinal fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar disc disease: a national (nationwide) inpatient sample analysis, 2002–2011. World Neurosurg. 85, 114–124 (2016).
11.
Hellum C, Berg L, Gjertsen O et al. Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: second report of a randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(25), 2063–2073 (2012).
12.
Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K et al. Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ 342, d2786 (2011).
13.
Johnsen LG, Brinckmann P, Hellum C, Rossvoll I, Leivseth G. Segmental mobility, disc height and patient-reported outcomes after surgery for degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomised trial comparing disc replacement and multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Bone Joint J. 95-B(1), 81–89 (2013).
14.
Blumenthal S, Mcafee PC, Guyer RD et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(14), 1565–1575; discussion E1387–E1591 (2005).
15.
Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(11), 1155–1162; discussion 1163 (2007).
16.
Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, Olerud C, Tropp H. Total disc replacement compared with lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur. Spine J. 18(10), 1512–1519 (2009).
17.
Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH. Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(25), E1600–E1611 (2011).
18.
Noshchenko A, Hoffecker L, Lindley EM, Burger EL, Cain CM, Patel VV. Long-term treatment effects of lumbar arthrodeses in degenerative disc disease: a systematic review with meta analysis. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 28(9), E493–E521 (2014).
19.
Rao MJ, Cao SS. Artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 134(2), 149–158 (2014).
20.
Nie H, Chen G, Wang X, Zeng J. Comparison of total disc replacement with lumbar fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 25(1), 60–67 (2015).
• A recent meta-analysis comparing total disc replacement (TDR) with lumbar fusion that reports significantly better clinical and safety outcomes, including Oswestry Disability Index success, patient satisfaction and complication rate, with TDR than with lumbar fusion at 2-year follow-up.
21.
Jacobs WC, Van Der Gaag NA, Kruyt MC et al. Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: a Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(1), 24–36 (2013).
22.
Yue JJ, Garcia R Jr., Miller LE. The activL((R)) artificial disc: a next-generation motion-preserving implant for chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Med. Devices. (Auckl.) 9, 75–84 (2016).
23.
Garcia R Jr, Yue JJ, Blumenthal S et al. Lumbar total disc replacement for discogenic low back pain: two-year outcomes of the activl multicenter randomized controlled IDE clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(24), 1873–1881 (2015).
• FDA IDE trial showing that activL was noninferior to ProDisc-L and Charite (p < 0.001) for the primary composite end point of treatment success and was superior for the primary composite end point in a protocol-defined analysis (p = 0.02) at 2-year follow-up.
24.
Guyer RD, Pettine K, Roh JS et al. Comparison of 2 lumbar total disc replacements: results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter Food and Drug Administration trial with 24 month follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(12), 925–931 (2014).
25.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann. Intern. Med. 162(11), 777–784 (2015).
• Recommended PRISMA guidance on reporting network meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions.
26.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343, d5928 (2011).
27.
Brown S, Hutton B, Clifford T et al. A Microsoft-Excel-based tool for running and critically appraising network meta-analyses–an overview and application of NetMetaXL. Syst. Rev. 3, 110 (2014).
•• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health supported Microsoft Excel-based tool for conducting a WinBugs-based Bayesian network meta-analysis.
28.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2011). http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/nicedsu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/05/TSD2-General-meta-analysis-corrected-2Sep2016v2.pdf.
29.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med. Decis. Making 33(5), 641–656 (2013).
30.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials (2011). http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/nicedsu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/TSD4-Inconsistency.final_.15April2014.pdf.
31.
Fu R, Selph S, Mcdonagh M et al. Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 158(12), 890–902 (2013).
32.
Jacobs W, Van Der Gaag NA, Tuschel A et al. Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (9), CD008326 (2012).
33.
Wei J, Song Y, Sun L, Lv C. Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. Orthop. 37(7), 1315–1325 (2013).
34.
Yajun W, Yue Z, Xiuxin H, Cui C. A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur. Spine J. 19(8), 1250–1261 (2010).
35.
Schwind J, Learman K, O'halloran B, Showalter C, Cook C. Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 21(2), 71–78 (2013).
36.
Ren C, Song Y, Liu L, Xue Y. Adjacent segment degeneration and disease after lumbar fusion compared with motion-preserving procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 24(Suppl. 1), S245–S253 (2014).
•• A recent meta-analysis highlighting the significantly lower incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and reoperations with TDR than with lumbar fusion (ASD: 12.2 vs 33.0%, p < 0.001; reoperations: 1.0 vs 7.8%, p < 0.001).
37.
Wang JC, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer JT, Norvell DC. Do lumbar motion preserving devices reduce the risk of adjacent segment pathology compared with fusion surgery? A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(22 Suppl.), S133–S143 (2012).
38.
Hiratzka J, Rastegar F, Contag AG, Norvell DC, Anderson PA, Hart RA. Adverse event recording and reporting in clinical trials comparing lumbar disk replacement with lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 5(6), 486–495 (2015).
39.
Zigler JE, Delamarter RB. Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. J. Neurosurg. Spine 17(6), 493–501 (2012).
40.
Guyer RD, Mcafee PC, Banco RJ et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J. 9(5), 374–386 (2009).
41.
Gornet M, Dryer R, Peloza J, Schranck F. Lumbar disc arthroplasty vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion: five-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick degree disc IDE study. Spine J. 10(9 Suppl. 1), S64 (2010).
42.
Guyer RD, Pettine K, Roh JS et al. Five-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial comparing two lumbar total disc replacements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(1), 3–8 (2016).
43.
Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgstrom F, Tullberg T, Tropp H. Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur. Spine J. 20(7), 1001–1011 (2011).
44.
Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ianuzzi A et al. National revision burden for lumbar total disc replacement in the United States: epidemiologic and economic perspectives. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(6), 690–696 (2010).
45.
Patel VV, Estes S, Lindley EM, Burger E. Lumbar spinal fusion versus anterior lumbar disc replacement: the financial implications. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 21(7), 473–476 (2008).
• Retrospective costing study showing that TDR patients had shorter hospital stays (2.6 vs 2.9–5.0 days) and shorter operating room times (222 vs 274–439) than fusion patients, leading to lower total hospital costs with TDR ($27,972) than with fusion ($32,167–$44,633).
46.
Guyer RD, Tromanhauser SG, Regan JJ. An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion. Spine J. 7(5), 558–562 (2007).
• An economic study reporting substantially lower costs with TDR than with fusion, from 12.0 to 36.5% lower index hospitalization costs to 82.8–99.0% lower total costs, including index hospitalization and subsequent costs up to 2-year follow-up.
47.
Parkinson B, Goodall S, Thavaneswaran P. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar artificial intervertebral disc replacement: driven by the choice of comparator. ANZ J. Surg. 83(9), 669–675 (2013).
48.
Johnsen LG, Hellum C, Storheim K et al. Cost-effectiveness of total disc replacement versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain: a Norwegian multicenter RCT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(1), 23–32 (2014).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2017 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Published online: 20 September 2017
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Comparison of therapies in lumbar degenerative disc disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. (2017) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2017-0047
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- José Manuel García-Moreno, Tyler Adams, Amber Beynon, Janine Vlaar Olthuis, Stephan U. Dombrowski, Richelle Witherspoon, Niels Wedderkopp, Jeffrey J. Hébert, Effects of rehabilitation and behavior change interventions on physical capacity and physical activity behavior following lumbar surgery for degenerative disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis, PLOS One, 10.1371/journal.pone.0347420, 21, 4, (e0347420), (2026).
- Tunç Öktenoğlu, Total Disc Replacement and Posterior Dynamic Stabilization in the Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease, Dynamic Lumbar Spine Stabilization, 10.1007/978-3-032-12122-6_7, (75-99), (2026).
- Morgan Lorio, Douglas Beall, Thomas Myers, Ramana Naidu, W McRoberts, Timothy Davis, Emmanuel Gage, Aaron Calodney, Paul Verrills, Michael De Palma, Kasra Amirdelfan, Jon Block, A Proposed Diagnostic and Treatment Algorithm for the Management of Lumbar Discogenic Pain, Journal of Pain Research, 10.2147/JPR.S522750, Volume 18, (3331-3343), (2025).
- Leonardo Metsavaht, Felipe F. Gonzalez, Eliane Celina Guadagnin, Dino Samartzis, Jonathan Gustafson, Talissa Oliveira Generoso, Jorge Chahla, Marcus Luzo, Gustavo Leporace, Identifying gait subgroups in low back pain patients with artificial intelligence: implications for individualized interventions, European Spine Journal, 10.1007/s00586-025-09033-2, (2025).
- Syed I. Khalid, Pranav Mirpuri, Kyle Thomson, Aladine Elsamadicy, Elie Massaad, Daniel Deysher, Harsh Khilwani, Owoicho Adogwa, John H. Shin, Ankit I. Mehta, Outcomes Following 2-Level Cervical Interventions with Cage-and-Plate, Zero-Profile, or Arthroplasty Constructs, World Neurosurgery, 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.09.117, 180, (e607-e617), (2023).
- Syed I. Khalid, Daniel Deysher, Kyle Thompson, Philip B. Ostrov, Jessica Hossa, Pranav Mirpuri, Owoicho Adogwa, Ankit I. Mehta, Outcomes of patients undergoing single-level arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion, Acta Neurochirurgica, 10.1007/s00701-023-05616-4, (2023).
- Gustavo G. Diez, Eduardo Anitua, Nazareth Castellanos, Carmelo Vázquez, Purificación Galindo-Villardón, Mohammad H. Alkhraisat, The effect of mindfulness on the inflammatory, psychological and biomechanical domains of adult patients with low back pain: A randomized controlled clinical trial, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0276734, 17, 11, (e0276734), (2022).
- Samir Smajic, Aleksandar Vujadinovic, Adnan Kasapovic, Dakheel A. Aldakheel, Yann Philippe Charles, Axel Walter, Jean-Paul Steib, Nicola Maffulli, Filippo Migliorini, Alice Baroncini, The influence of total disc arthroplasty with Mobidisc prosthesis on lumbar spine and pelvic parameters: a prospective in vivo biomechanical study with a minimum 3 year of follow-up, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 10.1186/s13018-022-03352-6, 17, 1, (2022).
- Matthew Scott-Young, So Mang (Simon) Lee, David Nielsen, Evelyne Rathbone, Matthew Rackham, Wayne Hing, Comparison of Mid- to Long-term Follow-up of Patient-reported Outcomes Measures After Single-level Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty, Multi-level Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty, and the Lumbar Hybrid Procedure for the Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease, Spine, 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004253, 47, 5, (377-386), (2021).
- Rodrigo Amaral, Murilo T. Daher, Raphael Pratali, Daniel Arnoni, Gabriel Pokorny, Raquel Rodrigues, Matheus Batista, Pedro Paulo Fortuna, Luiz Pimenta, Carlos Fernando P.S. Herrero, The Effect of Patient Position on Psoas Morphology and in Lumbar Lordosis, World Neurosurgery, 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.067, 153, (e131-e140), (2021).