Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25002211›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2014

Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review.

Sai Y Veruva, Marla J Steinbeck, Jeffrey Toth, Dominik D Alexander, Steven M Kurtz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Midterm osteolysis-induced aseptic failure of the M6-C™ cervical total disc replacement secondary to polyethylene wear debris.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [A review on the current state of ball-on-socket type artificial lumbar disc prosthesis].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2020
    Review
  13. Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2019
    Review
  14. Review
  15. We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.International journal of spine surgery · 2018
    Article
  16. CORR InsightsClinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Total Disc Replacement in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sai Y VeruvaImplant Research Center, Drexel University, 3401 Market Street, Suite 345, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Marla J Steinbeck
Jeffrey Toth
Dominik D Alexander
Steven M Kurtz
Drexel University · USExponent (United States) · USMedical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

Wear, Inflammation and Clinical Performance of Total Disc ReplacementR01AR056264 · NIAMS · DREXEL UNIVERSITY · PI KURTZ, STEVEN MICHAEL · 2010 to 2014
$1.6M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR056264NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR56264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal disc replacement was clinically introduced to reduce pain and preserve segmental motion of the lumbar and cervical spine. Previous case studies have reported on the wear and adverse local tissue reactions around artificial prostheses, but it is unclear how design and biomaterials affect clinical outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Which design and material factors are associated with differences in clinical wear performance (implant wear and periprosthetic tissue response) of (1) lumbar and (2) cervical total disc replacements?

methodsWe performed a systematic review on the topics of implant wear and periprosthetic tissue response using an advanced search in MEDLINE and Scopus electronic databases. Of the 340 references identified, 33 were retrieved for full-text evaluation, from which 16 papers met the inclusion criteria (12 on lumbar disc replacement and five on cervical disc replacement; one of the included studies reported on both lumbar and cervical disc replacement), which involved semiquantitative analysis of wear and adverse local tissue reactions along with a description of the device used. An additional three papers were located by searching bibliographies of key articles. There were seven case reports, three case series, two case-control studies, and seven analytical studies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) Scale was used to score case series and case-control studies, which yielded mean scores of 10.3 of 16 and 17.5 of 24, respectively. In general, the case series (three) and case-control (two) studies were of good quality.

resultsIn lumbar regions, metal-on-polymer devices with mobile-bearing designs consistently generated small and large polymeric wear debris, triggering periprosthetic tissue activation of macrophages and giant cells, respectively. In the cervical regions, metal-on-polymer devices with fixed-bearing designs had similar outcomes. All metal-on-metal constructs tended to generate small metallic wear debris, which typically triggered an adaptive immune response of predominantly activated lymphocytes. There were no retrieval studies on one-piece prostheses.

conclusionsThis review provides evidence that design and biomaterials affect the type of wear and inflammation. However, clinical study design, followup, and analytical techniques differ among investigations, preventing us from drawing firm conclusions about the relationship between implant design and wear performance for both cervical and lumbar total disc replacement.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsBiomechanical PhenomenaCervical VertebraeForeign-Body ReactionHumansIntervertebral DiscLumbar VertebraeMetalsPolymersProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureStress, MechanicalTotal Disc ReplacementTreatment OutcomeBiocompatible MaterialsMetalsPolymers

Identifiers

PMID25002211
PMCPMC4397740
OpenAlexW2015132721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.