Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(01): 034-042
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716534
Original Article

Facet Joint Replacement: Intermediate- and Long-Term Outcome in a Large Case Series

Ulrich J. Knappe 
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Johannes Wesling Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Minden, Germany
,
David Reinecke
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Johannes Wesling Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Minden, Germany
,
Michael Flörke
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Johannes Wesling Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Minden, Germany
,
Peter Horn
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital, Wiesbaden, Germany
,
Robert Schönmayr
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital, Wiesbaden, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding The implementation of the study was sponsored by Globus Medical (€6.800). The sponsor had no influence on design, implementation, or results and interpretation of the study.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The long-term outcome of facet joint replacement (FJR) still is to be proven.

Methods We present a prospective case series of 26 (male-to-female ratio of 1:1; mean age: 61 years) patients undergoing FJR with a follow-up of at least 1 year (range: 12–112; mean: 67 months). Visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were applied pre- and postoperatively (after 3, 6, and 12 months) as well as at the last follow-up (N = 24). Using X-rays of the lumbar spine (N = 20), the range of motion (ROM) and disk height in the indicator and adjacent levels were assessed.

Results FJR was performed at L3/L4 (N = 7), L4/L5 (N = 17), and L5/S1 (N = 2). Mean VAS (mm) for back pain decreased from 71 to 18, mean VAS for right leg pain from 61 to 7, and from 51 to 3 for the left leg. Mean ODI dropped from 51 to 22% (for all p < 0.01). Eighty seven percent of patients were satisfied and pretreatment activities were completely regained in 78.3% of patients. Disk height at the indicator and adjacent levels and ROM at the indicator segment and the entire lumbar spine were preserved. No loosening of implants was observed. Explantation of FJR and subsequent fusion had to be performed in four cases (15.4%).

Conclusions In selected cases, long-term results of FJR show good outcome concerning pain, quality of life, preservation of lumbar spine motion, and protection of adjacent level.

Keywords

facet joint replacement - facet joint arthroplasty - facet joint pain - spinal motion preservation - adjacent level disease

Approval

The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany (AZ 2017–156).


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 18 February 2020

Accepted: 22 April 2020

Article published online:
05 December 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Butler D, Trafimow JH, Andersson GB, McNeill TW, Huckman MS. Discs degenerate before facets. Spine 1990; 15 (02) 111-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Adams MA, Roughley PJ. What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it?. Spine 2006; 31 (18) 2151-2161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fujiwara A, Tamai K, Yamato M. et al. The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J 1999; 8 (05) 396-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Suri P, Miyakoshi A, Hunter DJ. et al. Does lumbar spinal degeneration begin with the anterior structures? A study of the observed epidemiology in a community-based population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Carter JR. Imaging of degenerative disk disease. Radiology 1988; 168 (01) 177-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A. et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7 (06) 579-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chou R, Atlas SJ, Stanos SP, Rosenquist RW. Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline. Spine 2009; 34 (10) 1078-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Matsuoka Y, Endo K, Suzuki H. et al. Postoperative radiographic early-onset adjacent segment degeneration after single-level L4–L5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion in patients without preoperative severe sagittal spinal imbalance. Asian Spine J 2018; 12 (04) 743-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hashimoto K, Aizawa T, Kanno H, Itoi E. Adjacent segment degeneration after fusion spinal surgery-a systematic review. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (04) 987-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Serhan H, Mhatre D, Defossez H, Bono CM. Motion-preserving technologies for degenerative lumbar spine: The past, present, and future horizons. SAS J 2011; 5 (03) 75-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Goel VK, Mehta A, Jangra J. et al. Anatomic Facet Replacement System (AFRS) restoration of lumbar segment mechanics to intact: a finite element study and in vitro cadaver investigation. SAS J 2007; 1 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sjovold SG, Zhu Q, Bowden A. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the Total Facet Arthroplasty System® (TFAS®): loading as compared to a rigid posterior instrumentation system. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (08) 1660-1673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Anekstein Y, Floman Y, Smorgick Y, Rand N, Millgram M, Mirovsky Y. Seven years follow-up for total lumbar facet joint replacement (TOPS) in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (10) 2306-2314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Farwana R, Koshy K, Fowler AJ, Orgill DP. PROCESS Group. The PROCESS 2018 statement: updating consensus preferred reporting of case series in surgery (PROCESS) guidelines. Int J Surg 2018; 60: 279-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T. et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (15) 1413-1423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tosic L, Baschera D, Oberle J, Alex A. Decompression and dynamic transpedicular stabilization using polyetherketone rods and pedicle screws vs. decompression alone for single-level spinal canal stenosis with listhesis: a retrospective case-control study. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2019; 80 (06) 454-459
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH. Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine 1989; 14 (07) 717-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Inui T, Murakami M, Nagao N. et al. Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: changes in surgical indications and comparison of instrumented fusion with two surgical decompression procedures. Spine 2017; 42 (01) E15-E24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Palmer DK, Inceoglu S, Cheng WK. Stem fracture after total facet replacement in the lumbar spine: a report of two cases and review of the literature. Spine J 2011; 11 (07) e15-e19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goodwin ML, Spiker WR, Brodke DS, Lawrence BD. Failure of facet replacement system with metal-on-metal bearing surface and subsequent discovery of cobalt allergy: report of 2 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 29 (01) 81-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Baeesa SS, Medrano BG, Noriega DC. Long-term outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using stand-alone ray threaded cage for degenerative disc disease: a 20-year follow up. Asian Spine J 2016; 10 (06) 1100-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Irmola TM, Häkkinen A, Järvenpää S, Marttinen I, Vihtonen K, Neva M. Reoperation rates following instrumented lumbar spine fusion. Spine 2018; 43 (04) 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, Smith M, White GJ, Osburg B. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J 2011; 11 (01) 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Tilburg CW, Stronks DL, Groeneweg JG, Huygen FJ. Randomised sham-controlled double-blind multicentre clinical trial to ascertain the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency treatment for lumbar facet joint pain. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (11) 1526-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lee CH, Chung CK, Kim CH. The efficacy of conventional radiofrequency denervation in patients with chronic low back pain originating from the facet joints: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Spine J 2017; 17 (11) 1770-1780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Juch JNS, Maas ET, Ostelo RWJG. et al. Effect of radiofrequency denervation on pain intensity among patients with chronic low back pain: the Mint randomized clinical trials. JAMA 2017; 318 (01) 68-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Oda T, Haku T, Yamamoto T, Iwasaki M. Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4 (04) 304-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R, Liu Z. A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (05) 1575-1580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moldavsky M, Neumann P, Klocke N, Hussain M, Bucklen BS. In vitro analysis of circumferential joint replacement, including bilateral facet joint replacement with lateral lumber disc prosthesis: a parametric investigation of disc sizing. Eur Spine J 2017; 26 (03) 785-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Nayak AN, Doarn MC, Gaskins RB. et al. Postero-lateral disc prosthesis combined with a unilateral facet replacement device maintains quantity and quality of motion at a single lumbar level. J Int Spine Surg 2014; 8: 31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar