Although statistically significant, the differences between disc replacement and conventional fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease were not beyond the generally accepted clinical important differences with respect to short-term pain relief, disability and Quality of Life. Moreover, these analyses only represent a highly selected population. The primary goal of prevention of adjacent level disease and facet joint degeneration by using total disc replacement, as noted by the manufacturers and distributors, was not properly assessed and not a research question at all. Unfortunately, evidence from observational studies could not be used because of the high risk of bias, while these could have improved external validity assessment of complications in less selected patient groups. Non-randomised studies should however be very clear about patient selection and should incorporate independent, blinded outcome assessment, which was not the case in the excluded studies. Therefore, because we believe that harm and complications may occur after years, we believe that the spine surgery community should be prudent about adopting this technology on a large scale, despite the fact that total disc replacement seems to be effective in treating low-back pain in selected patients, and in the short term is at least equivalent to fusion surgery.
Lumbar disc arthroplasty with Maverick disc versus stand-alone interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter investigational device exemption trial.
Randomized, controlled, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial.
                To investigate the safety and effectiveness of the first two-piece, metal-on-metal lumbar disc prosthesis for treating patients with single-level degenerative disc disease.
                For patients with degenerative disc disease unresponsive to conservative measures, lumbar disc arthroplasty provides an alternative to fusion designed to relieve persistent discogenic pain and maintain motion.
                After 2:1 randomization, 577 patients were treated in either the investigational group (405), receiving lumbar disc arthroplasty, or the control group (172), receiving anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at surgery/discharge, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The primary study endpoint was overall success, a composite measure of safety and effectiveness as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration and defined in the protocol.
                Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements compared with preoperative status. The investigational group had statistically superior outcomes (P < 0.05) at all postoperative evaluations in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores as well as patient satisfaction. Investigational patients had longer surgical times (P < 0.001) and greater blood loss (P < 0.001) than did control patients; however, hospitalization stays were similar for both groups. Investigational patients had fewer implant or implant/surgical procedure-related adverse events (P < 0.001). Return-to-work intervals were reduced for investigational patients. Disc height and segmental angular motion were maintained throughout the study in the investigational group. In the investigational group, overall success superiority was found when compared to the control group as defined by the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption protocol.
                The investigational group consistently demonstrated statistical superiority versus fusion on key clinical outcomes including improved physical function, reduced pain, and earlier return to work.