Seminars in Spine Surgery
Volume 20, Issue 2 , Pages 132-145 , June 2008

Lumbar Disc Replacement: Where Are We in 2007?

  • Eeric Truumees, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Eeric Truumees, MD, William Beaumont Hospital, Gehring Biomechanics Laboratory, 3601 West 13 Mile Road, Royal Oak, MI 48073.

References 

  1. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects (A prospective investigation). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(3):403–408
  2. Mathews HH, Evans MT, Molligan HJ, et al. Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (A preliminary review). Spine. 1995;20(16):1797–1802
  3. O'Brien JP, Dawson MH, Heard CW, et al. Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion (A surgical solution for failed spinal surgery with a brief review of the first 150 patients). Clin Orthop. 1986;203:191–195
  4. Parker LM, Murrell SE, Boden SD, et al. The outcome of posterolateral fusion in highly selected patients with discogenic low back pain. Spine. 1996;21(16):1909–1916discussion 1916-1917
  5. Blumenthal SL, Baker J, Dossett A, et al. The role of anterior lumbar fusion for internal disc disruption. Spine. 1988;13(5):566–569
  6. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S. Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S131–S136
  7. Cunningham BW. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2004;4(suppl 6):219S–230S
  8. Lee CK, Goel VK. Artificial disc prosthesis: design concepts and criteria. Spine J. 2004;4(suppl 6):209S–218S
  9. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine. 2005;30(14):1576–1583discussion E388-E390
  10. Mayer HM, Wiechert K. Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(suppl 5):S159–S165
  11. Pearcy MJ. Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1985;212:1–45
  12. Gunzburg R, Mayer H, Szpalski M, et al. Arthroplasty of the spine: the long quest for mobility. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S63–S64
  13. Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel TCh, et al. Effects of charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine. 2005;30(24):2755–2764
  14. Niosi CA, Oxland TR. Degenerative mechanics of the lumbar spine. Spine J. 2004;4(suppl 6):202S–208S
  15. Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R, et al. Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J. 2006;6(3):258–266
  16. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali el H, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(4):353–359
  17. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis (Results and prospects for the year 2000). Clin Orthopaed Related Res. 1997;337:64–76
  18. Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A, et al. Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S124–S130
  19. Patel VV, Andrews C, Pradhan BB, et al. Computed tomography assessment of the accuracy of in vivo placement of artificial discs in the lumbar spine including radiographic and clinical consequences. Spine. 2006;31(8):948–953
  20. Le Huec J, Basso Y, Aunoble S, et al. Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(3):219–223
  21. Gehrchen PM, Dahl B, Katonis P, et al. No difference in clinical outcome after posterolateral lumbar fusion between patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis and those with degenerative disc disease using pedicle screw instrumentation: a comparative study of 112 patients with 4 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(5):423–427
  22. Huang RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP, et al. The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine. 2004;29(22):2538–2541
  23. Wong D, Annesser B, Birney T, et al. Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis. Spine J. 2007;7:5–11
  24. Connolly PJ, Esses SI, Kostuik JP. Anterior cervical fusion: outcome analysis of patients fused with and without anterior cervical plates. J Spinal Disord. 1996;9(3):202–206
  25. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Fenk-Mayer A, et al. Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(2):91–97
  26. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):369–383
  27. Bertagnoli R, Kumar S. Indications for full prosthetic disc arthroplasty: a correlation of clinical outcome against a variety of indications. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S131–S136
  28. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Nanieva R, et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: a prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(2):85–90
  29. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Kershaw T, et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis in smokers versus nonsmokers: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine. 2006;31(9):992–997
  30. Nattrass CL, Nitschke JE, Disler PB, et al. Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: an investigation of validity. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(3):211–218
  31. Boden SD. The use of radiographic imaging studies in the evaluation of patients who have degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(1):114–124
  32. Aprill C, Bogduk N. High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol. 1992;65(773):361–369
  33. Carragee EJ, Paragioudakis SJ, Khurana S. 2000 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies: lumbar high-intensity zone and discography in subjects without low back problems. Spine. 2000;25(23):2987–2992
  34. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, et al. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166(1 Pt. 1):193–199
  35. Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL, et al. Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J. 2005;5(1):24–35
  36. DeBerard MS, Colledge AL, Masters KS, et al. Outcomes of posterolateral versus BAK titanium cage interbody lumbar fusion in injured workers: a retrospective cohort study. J South Orthop Assoc. 2002;11(3):157–166
  37. Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD, et al. Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine. 2000;25(20):2656–2662
  38. Button G, Gupta M, Barrett C, et al. Three- to six-year follow-up of stand-alone BAK cages implanted by a single surgeon. Spine J. 2005;5(2):155–160
  39. Chen CS, Chen WJ, Cheng CK, et al. Failure analysis of broken pedicle screws on spinal instrumentation. Med Eng Phys. 2005;27(6):487–496
  40. Elias WJ, Simmons NE, Kaptain GJ, et al. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(suppl 1):45–52
  41. Pitzen T, Geisler FH, Matthis D, et al. Motion of threaded cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(6):571–576
  42. Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G. Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine. 2005;30(7):738–743
  43. Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, et al. Prospective study evaluating total disc replacement: preliminary results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(5):450–454
  44. Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, et al. Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charite intervertebral disc (Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004). J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(2):143–154
  45. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Hochschuler SH, et al. Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: data from two investigational centers. Spine J. 2004;4(suppl 6):252S–259S
  46. Hochschuler SH, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, et al. Artificial disc: preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S106–S110
  47. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, et al. Experimental design of total disk replacement-experience with a prospective randomized study of the SB Charite. Spine. 2003;28(20):S153–S162
  48. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, et al. SB Charite disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):424–433
  49. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine. 2005;30(14):1565–1575discussion E387-E391
  50. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB. Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthoped Clin North Am. 2005;36(3):301–313
  51. Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LE, et al. ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine. 2003;28(20):S167–S175
  52. Zigler JE. Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J. 2004;4(suppl 6):260S–267S
  53. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN, et al. Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):352–361
  54. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. [see comment] JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–2450
  55. Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, et al. Charite total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. [see comment] Eur Spine J. 2006;15(2):183–195
  56. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, et al. Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(3):210–217
  57. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine. 1996;21(8):995–1000
  58. David T. Ten years or more follow-up with the LINK SB Charité artificial disc: 17 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(suppl 1):101–105
  59. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al. Lumbar total disc replacement (Seven to eleven-year follow-up). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):490–496
  60. Sott AH, Harrison DJ. Increasing age does not affect good outcome after lumbar disc replacement. Int Orthop. 2000;24(1):50–53
  61. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, et al. The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine. 2005;30(19):2192–2199
  62. Huang R, Girardi F, Cammisa F, et al. Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine. 2005;30(12):1407–1411
  63. Enker P, Steffee A, McMillin C, et al. Artificial disc replacement (Preliminary report with a 3-year minimum follow-up). Spine. 1993;18(8):1061–1070
  64. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y, et al. Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(3):315–322
  65. Cunningham BW, Lowery GL, Serhan HA, et al. Total disc replacement arthroplasty using the AcroFlex lumbar disc: a non-human primate model. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S115–S123
  66. Leivseth G, Braaten S, Frobin W, et al. Mobility of lumbar segments instrumented with a ProDisc II prosthesis: a two-year follow-up study. Spine. 2006;31(15):1726–1733
  67. SariAli el-H, Lemaire JP, Pascal-Mousselard H, et al. In vivo study of the kinematics in axial rotation of the lumbar spine after total intervertebral disc replacement: long-term results: a 10-14 years follow up evaluation. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(10):1501–1510
  68. Link HD. History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(suppl 2):S98–S105
  69. Hallab NJ, Cunningham BW, Jacobs JJ. Spinal implant debris-induced osteolysis. Spine. 2003;28(20):S125–S138
  70. Serhan HA, Dooris AP, Parsons ML, et al. In vitro wear assessment of the Charite Artificial Disc according to ASTM recommendations. Spine. 2006;31(17):1900–1910
  71. van Ooij A, Kurtz SM, Stessels F, et al. Polyethylene wear debris and long-term clinical failure of the Charite disc prosthesis: a study of 4 patients. Spine. 2007;32(2):223–229
  72. Chang BS, Brown PR, Sieber A, et al. Evaluation of the biological response of wear debris. Spine J. 2004;4(suppl 6):239S–244S
  73. Wang JC, Yu WD, Sandhu HS, et al. Metal debris from titanium spinal implants. Spine. 1999;24(9):899–903
  74. Moore RJ, Fraser RD, Vernon-Roberts B, et al. The biologic response to particles from a lumbar disc prosthesis. Spine. 2002;27(19):2088–2094
  75. Dunstan E, Sanghrajka A, Tilley S, et al. Metal ion levels after metal-on-metal proximal femoral replacements: a 30-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(5):628–631
  76. Zeh A, Planert M, Siegert G, et al. Release of cobalt and chromium ions into the serum following implantation of the metal-on-metal Maverick-type artificial lumbar disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Spine. 2007;32(3):348–352
  77. Toth JM. Point of view. Spine. 2002;27:935–936
  78. Grant J, Oxland T, Dvorak T. Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine. 2001;26:889–896
  79. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. [see comment] J Spinal Disord Techn. 2003;16(4):369–383
  80. Bertagnoli R, Zigler J, Karg A, et al. Complications and strategies for revision surgery in total disc replacement. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(3):389–395
  81. Wagner WH, Regan JJ, Leary SP, et al. Access strategies for revision or explantation of the Charite lumbar artificial disc replacement. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44(6):1266–1272
  82. McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS, et al. Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine. 2006;31(11):1217–1226
  83. Pimenta L, Diaz RC, Guerrero LG. Charite lumbar artificial disc retrieval: use of a lateral minimally invasive technique (Technical note). J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;5(6):556–561

PII: S1040-7383(08)00022-1

doi: 10.1053/j.semss.2008.02.008

Seminars in Spine Surgery
Volume 20, Issue 2 , Pages 132-145 , June 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution