REPRINT: Surgical Treatment for Discogenic Low-Back Pain: Lumbar Arthroplasty Results in Superior Pain Reduction and Disability Level Improvement Compared With Lumbar Fusion.
{"title":"REPRINT: Surgical Treatment for Discogenic Low-Back Pain: Lumbar Arthroplasty Results in Superior Pain Reduction and Disability Level Improvement Compared With Lumbar Fusion.","authors":"Fred H Geisler","doi":"10.14444/8744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: <i>SAS J</i> 2007;1(1):12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0002-RR) BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the Charité artificial disc on October 26, 2004. This approval was based on an extensive analysis and review process; 20 years of disc usage worldwide; and the results of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compared lumbar artificial disc replacement to fusion. The results of the investigational device exemption (IDE) study led to a conclusion that clinical outcomes following lumbar arthroplasty were at least as good as outcomes from fusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The author performed a new analysis of the Visual Analog Scale pain scores and the Oswestry Disability Index scores from the Charité artificial disc IDE study and used a nonparametric statistical test, because observed data distributions were not normal. The analysis included all of the enrolled subjects in both the nonrandomized and randomized phases of the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Subjects from both the treatment and control groups improved from the baseline situation (<i>P</i>< .001) at all follow-up times (6 weeks to 24 months). Additionally, these pain and disability levels with artificial disc replacement were superior (<i>P</i>< .05) to the fusion treatment at all follow-up times including 2 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The a priori statistical plan for an IDE study may not adequately address the final distribution of the data. Therefore, statistical analyses more appropriate to the distribution may be necessary to develop meaningful statistical conclusions from the study. A nonparametric statistical analysis of the Charité artificial disc IDE outcomes scores demonstrates superiority for lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion at all follow-up time points to 24 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":"19 S2","pages":"S38-S44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067077/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: SAS J 2007;1(1):12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2006-0002-RR) BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the Charité artificial disc on October 26, 2004. This approval was based on an extensive analysis and review process; 20 years of disc usage worldwide; and the results of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compared lumbar artificial disc replacement to fusion. The results of the investigational device exemption (IDE) study led to a conclusion that clinical outcomes following lumbar arthroplasty were at least as good as outcomes from fusion.
Methods: The author performed a new analysis of the Visual Analog Scale pain scores and the Oswestry Disability Index scores from the Charité artificial disc IDE study and used a nonparametric statistical test, because observed data distributions were not normal. The analysis included all of the enrolled subjects in both the nonrandomized and randomized phases of the study.
Results: Subjects from both the treatment and control groups improved from the baseline situation (P< .001) at all follow-up times (6 weeks to 24 months). Additionally, these pain and disability levels with artificial disc replacement were superior (P< .05) to the fusion treatment at all follow-up times including 2 years.
Conclusions: The a priori statistical plan for an IDE study may not adequately address the final distribution of the data. Therefore, statistical analyses more appropriate to the distribution may be necessary to develop meaningful statistical conclusions from the study. A nonparametric statistical analysis of the Charité artificial disc IDE outcomes scores demonstrates superiority for lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion at all follow-up time points to 24 months.
期刊介绍：
The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
