Postoperative Care Pathways Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Results of a Modified Delphi Approach.

STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Subject matter experts were invited to participate as the expert panel. Best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" after a series of statements during several rounds until either consensus could be obtained or the practice method was deemed unable to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVE: Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is acknowledged as an alternative to spinal fusion in appropriately selected patients. There is a lack of unanimity on the appropriate postoperative patient protocols and rehabilitation expectations for the procedure. The long-term viability of Lumbar TDR, further adoption in the community setting and specific patient outcomes are contingent on the existence of appropriate postoperative recovery programs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently there are no established methods for postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Establishing a postoperative clinical pathway algorithm may improve patient outcomes with respect to lumbar TDR. METHOD: A lumbar TDR expert panel of 22 spine surgeons employed a modified Delphi method to drive consensus on postoperative care following single-level Lumbar TDR. The panel first reviewed literature and guidelines relevant to postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Panel members considered 21 survey questions intended to determine "standard-practice" postoperative care recommendations for patients who have undergone lumbar TDR for the initial recovery phase (0-4 wk) and rehabilitation (4-20 wk). Each panel member participated in a round of anonymous voting followed by a group discussion. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or higher among the respondents. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved in 11 of the 21 survey questions. There was a high degree of consensus around the key goals for both the initial recovery and rehabilitation phases, ceased use of narcotics for pain management by 4 weeks postoperative, unrestricted walking immediately following surgery, timelines for physical therapy (within 2-4 wk) and return to work based on level of activity (as early as 1 wk postoperative). Lack of agreement included the use of back bracing and timing of postoperative visits. Generally, panel members felt that patient expectations regarding return to function were different following lumbar TDR versus fusion and warrant further study. CONCLUSION: Surgeon and patient alignment around postoperative expectations may significantly affect the long-term results of lumbar TDR. This surgeon consensus study found agreement for immediate postoperative ambulation, rapid reduction in opioids within the first month, and early return to work. When expectations are appropriately set with patients preoperatively, both provider and patient have shared goals in the return-to-function process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Physiotherapeutic Rehabilitation Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study sought to answer the following questions: What are the outcomes of physiotherapy post lumbar total disc replacement (LTDR) compared with patient self-mediated rehabilitation? Is a difference in outcomes related to the number of physiotherapy sessions? METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of 600 patients post TDR. Patient outcomes for self-mediated rehabilitation (Group 1), 1-3 sessions of clinic-based physiotherapy (Group 2) and ≥4 sessions of clinic-based physiotherapy (Group 3) were analysed. Outcomes measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Short Form-36 Physical (SF-36 PCS) and Mental Subscale Components (SF-36 MCS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain intensity. Patient's pre-operative baseline measures and post-operative follow-up measures at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-operatively were analysed. RESULTS: Oswestry Disability Index and RMQ had significantly lower scores in Group 3 compared with Group 1 at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up. Significantly lower scores for Group 2 compared with Group 1 were observed for the ODI at 3 months follow-up and for the RMQ at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Significantly lower scores were observed in Group 3 compared with Group 1 for VAS back pain at 3 months and VAS leg pain at 6 months follow-up. Significantly higher scores in Group 3 compared with Group 1 were also observed in the SF-36 PCS at 6, 12 and 24 months. Significantly higher scores in Group 2 compared with Group 1 were observed at 6 months follow up. These trends were also observed when investigating the percentage of patients with a greater 50% improvement in the outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapy post-LTDR produces statistically significant and possibly clinically important improvements in functional disability, pain and quality of life outcomes compared with self-mediated rehabilitation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sistema pedicular de estabilización dinámica. Resultados funcionales y complicaciones del implante en pacientes con enfermedad degenerativa discal lumbar, tras un seguimiento mínimo de 4 años / Pedicular dynamic stabilization system. Functional outcomes and implant-related complications for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 4 years

Introducción: El sistema de estabilización Dynesys® es un sistema pedicular de estabilización dinámica sin fusión. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar los resultados clínicos en pacientes con enfermedad degenerativa discal y/o estenosis, así como medir la prevalencia de aflojamiento de tornillos tras 4 años de seguimiento. Material y métodos: Se trata de un estudio de serie de casos retrospectivo donde fueron incluidos todos los pacientes intervenidos desde enero a diciembre de 2008 con Dynesys®. Se indicó la cirugía si presentaban dolor lumbar de más de 6 meses de evolución y una RM positiva para enfermedad degenerativa discal y/o estenosis. Resultados: Veintidós pacientes (11 mujeres y 11 varones) con una edad media de 44,40 ± 11 años fueron evaluados. Veinte pacientes (91%) recibieron el implante Dynesys® sin ninguna maniobra de descompresión asociada. La evaluación del dolor de espalda y piernas (0-10 mm) registró una disminución media de 2,4 ± 2,06 mm (p = 0,0001). El valor preoperatorio del índice de discapacidad de Oswestry fue de 52,36 ± 16,56% (limitación funcional severa). Tras la cirugía este valor fue de 34,27 ± 17,87% (limitación funcional moderada) con una disminución de 18,09 ± 16,03% (p = 0,001). Cuatro pacientes (18%) mostraron signos de aflojamiento de tornillos. Un paciente (4,5%) presentó rotura de tornillo. Conclusiones: La cirugía con Dynesys® muestra resultados clínicos favorables, sin embargo el rango de mejoría en nuestra serie es menor a los comunicados por otros autores. Estudios comparativos entre Dynesys® y descompresión deberían realizarse para poder aislar el beneficio de la estabilización dinámica del obtenido por la descompresión. Las complicaciones relacionadas con el implante no son infrecuentes (AU)

Introduction: The Dynesys® system is a non-fusion pedicular dynamic stabilization system. The aim of our study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients with degenerative disc disease and/or stenosis, and to measure the prevalence of screw loosening and breakage after 4 years of follow up. Material and methods: All patients who underwent surgery with Dynesys® system in 2008 were reviewed. The surgery was performed in cases of low back pain of more than 6 months duration and a positive MRI for degenerative disc disease and/or stenosis. Results: A total of 22 patients (11 females, 11 males) with a mean age of 44.40 ± 11 years were included, 20 patients (91%) underwent Dynesys® without any associated decompression maneuver. The evaluation of back and leg pain (0–10 mm) showed a mean decrease of 2.4 ± 2.06 mm (P = .0001). The preoperative value of the Oswestry disability index was 52.36 ± 16.56% (severe functional limitation). After surgery, this value was 34.27 ± 17.87% (moderate functional limitation) (P = .001) with a decrease of 18.09 ± 16.03% (P = .001). A total of 4 (18%) patients showed signs of loosening screws. One patient (4.5%) had a screw breakage. Conclusions: Surgery with Dynesys® shows favorable long term clinical results, however the range of improvement in our series is lower than those reported in other studies. Comparative studies between Dynesys® and decompression need to be performed in order to isolate the benefit of the dynamic stabilization system. Implant-related complications are not uncommon (AU)