For decades, spinal fusion has been one of the most common surgical solutions for degenerative disc disease. The procedure remains effective for many patients, but spine surgeons are increasingly asking whether eliminating motion should always be the goal.
As long-term data on disc replacement matures and patients become more informed about their treatment options, motion-preserving procedures are gaining renewed attention across the field.
Dean Perfetti, MD, an orthopedic spine surgeon at Carmel, N.Y.-based Somers Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine Group, believes several forces are driving that shift.
“I think patients are getting savvier and smarter when looking at their options,” Dr. Perfetti said. “There’s been renewed interest not only in the spine field, but with general surgeons and vascular surgeons who now want to be a part of this because they see the results and patients are requesting more motion-preserving technology.”
The renewed interest comes after years in which fusion remained the dominant procedure, despite the availability of artificial disc technology.
Today, however, surgeons have access to newer implant designs, broader insurance approvals and, perhaps most importantly, decades of follow-up data. Those developments are changing how some physicians think about motion preservation.
The patient selection challenge
Despite growing enthusiasm surrounding disc replacement, Dr. Perfetti emphasized that the procedure is far from a universal solution. In many cases, determining whether a patient is a candidate comes down to careful imaging review and understanding the condition of the facet joints.
“I usually lean toward disc replacement unless imaging shows a reason not to,” he said. “I rely on CT scans to evaluate the facet joints and assess arthritis. In the cervical spine, the data has increasingly shown that disc replacement outcomes are at least as good as fusion, if not better.”
Facet degeneration can significantly influence outcomes and remains one of the most important factors in determining whether motion preservation is appropriate.
For lumbar disc replacement candidates, Dr. Perfetti also looks for a specific clinical profile: persistent axial back pain, evidence of disc degeneration on MRI and failure of conservative treatment. “You have to build up a case,” he said.
That process often includes additional diagnostic workups and injections to confirm the source of symptoms before surgery is considered.
What 20-year outcomes are showing
One of the most significant developments in the motion-preservation debate has been the availability of long-term outcomes data. Historically, one of the biggest questions surrounding disc replacement centered on durability. Could an artificial disc continue functioning decades after implantation?
The answer, according to data Dr. Perfetti encountered during his fellowship training at Plano-based Texas Back Institute, appears increasingly encouraging.
“When I trained at Texas Back, they had 20-year outcomes for lumbar disc replacements,” he said. “The revision rate was a little bit over 1%.”
Those results helped shape his perspective on motion preservation and adjacent segment disease, one of the most commonly cited concerns associated with spinal fusion. The theory is that preserving motion at the treated level may reduce the mechanical stress placed on neighboring segments of the spine over time.
While the literature continues to evolve, Dr. Perfetti believes the concept remains important when comparing fusion and arthroplasty.
“For me, it plays a big role,” he said.
Technology is changing the field
Advances in implant technology have also contributed to renewed momentum. Early generations of disc replacements offered fewer options for customization and anatomical fit. Today’s implants provide significantly more flexibility.
“We’re up to third-generation discs, if not more, for certain companies,” Dr. Perfetti said.
Using CT imaging and detailed preoperative planning, surgeons can now select implants with varying heights, depths and alignment characteristics tailored to individual anatomy.
“There’s so much modularity,” he said.
At the same time, insurers have become increasingly willing to approve certain two-level disc replacement procedures, expanding access for some patients. Together, those developments have helped move disc replacement further into the mainstream conversation.
The reimbursement paradox
Despite growing evidence and patient interest, Dr. Perfetti believes financial realities continue to influence adoption.
Fusion procedures often remain more attractive from a reimbursement standpoint, even though disc replacement may require additional planning, specialized training and, in lumbar cases, collaboration with vascular or general surgeons.
“It is pretty unfavorable to do a disc replacement,” Dr. Perfetti said.
That disconnect creates an unusual dynamic. On one hand, many surgeons see encouraging long-term outcomes and growing patient demand. On the other, reimbursement structures may not always reward the additional complexity involved.
“If we got paid through these diagnosis-related groups and there was one flat fee, I’m sure people would not be doing as many fusions compared to doing disc replacements,” he said.
Still, Dr. Perfetti does not believe economics should drive clinical decision-making.
“It can help patients achieve better outcomes and potentially avoid additional surgeries down the road,” he said. “While financial considerations aren’t what drive treatment decisions, reimbursement structures do influence how many surgeons ultimately adopt and offer disc replacement procedures.”
Looking beyond disc replacement
For Dr. Perfetti, motion preservation extends beyond arthroplasty alone. He also performs endoscopic spine procedures designed to address pathology while minimizing disruption to soft tissues and stabilizing structures. In some cases, those procedures may allow patients to avoid or delay larger reconstructive operations altogether.
“Whenever possible, I prefer to preserve motion before deciding to eliminate it,” he said.
That philosophy reflects what may be the broader evolution occurring within spine surgery. Rather than asking whether fusion or disc replacement is universally better, surgeons are increasingly focused on identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from each approach.
As long-term data accumulates and technology continues to evolve, Dr. Perfetti believes the future of spine care will be defined less by a single procedure and more by the ability to match the right operation to the right patient.
At the Becker's 23rd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven ASC + The Future of Spine Conference, taking place June 11-13 in Chicago, spine surgeons, orthopedic leaders and ASC executives will come together to explore minimally invasive techniques, ASC growth strategies and innovations shaping the future of outpatient spine care. Apply for complimentary registration now.
