result

In hospitals these days one out of every fifth patient is of back pain which is the third most common reason for surgery. Discs work as cushions between the vertebrae of the spine. When they are healthy, have enough "give" to allow the back to be flexible but are firm enough to provide stability. With aging and or in case of injury, they lose their elasticity and density. With period of time nerves may become hollow between the bones, causing pain not just in the spine but in other parts of the body. When physical therapy and drugs fail to get relieve from back or neck pain, patients often turn to spinal fusion surgery as a last resort.

Fusion surgery seeks to relieve symptoms of the degenerative disease by removing the damaged disc and replacing it with bone. Studies show this procedure often can be effective but there can be drawbacks: in some cases, fused spinal sections can lose flexibility, slowing down normal movement and stressing adjacent discs, often leading later to more fusion surgery. According to two new studies show that in certain situations, especially when several discs are involved, artificial disc replacement may give better long-term results at lower cost than spinal fusion.

Artificial disc replacement, which has been performed on disc related ailments, tends to cause less tissue injury than fusion surgery, and the discs are designed to maintain natural spine movement and reduce need for follow-up surgery.

A survey was conducted to compare disc replacement surgery with the more common fusion operation to treat degenerative disc disease. In one of the survey, 209 patients with damaged neck discs received either minimally invasive disc replacement or the more complex spinal fusion surgery. These patients were followed at regular intervals for four years. A separate group of 136 who received an artificial disc two years after the first group also were part of the study. All patients were assessed on their satisfaction with the results of the procedure. The other study focused on 53 patients suffering from three-level, lower back disc disease and looked at cost comparisons for length of hospital stay, resources used and other factors.

Patients in the study had imaging scans to measure before-and-after flexibility and range of motion; were evaluated for physical and neurological improvement. Improvements were seen in all categories, regardless of the surgical procedure, but results inclined to be at least slightly better in patients with disc replacements.

In their study of patients suffering neck (cervical) disc disease, it was found both disc replacement and fusion surgery acceptable options providing good long-term results. But four years out from surgery, fusion patients were four times more likely to need more surgery. Half of these secondary operations were needed to treat new disc problems occurring adjacent to fused sections.

Moreover spinal fusion has been recognized as one of the most expensive surgical procedures. Hospital costs for artificial disc replacement are 49 percent lower, and four years out from surgery, artificial disc patients will be four times less likely to need additional surgery than those who had fusion operations, according to two recently published studies.