Artificial lumbar intervertebral disc replacement: accepted practice or experimental surgery?

References

• Errico TJ. Why a mechanical disc? Spine J.4, 151S–157S (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Kleuver M, Oner FC and Jacobs WCH. Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Spine J.12, 108–116 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• German JW, Foley KT. Disc arthroplasty in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine30, S60–S67 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freeman BJ, Davenport J. Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Spine J.15, S439–S447 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiedenhöfer B, Ewerbeck V, Suda AJ et al. [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement: update 2008.] Chirurg79, 937–943 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. Spine30, 1567–1575 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine32, 1155–1162 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser RD, Ross ER, Lowery GL et al. AcroFlex design and results. Spine J.4, 245S–251S (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. Spine30, 1576–1583 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charite artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J.9, 374–386 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zigler JE, Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J.4, S260–S267 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Zindrick MR, Lorenz MA, Bunch WH. Editorial response to parts 1 and 2 of the FDA IDE study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charite™ artificial disc vs. lumbar fusion. Spine30, E388–E390 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Mirza SK. Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to food and drug administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine30, 1561–1564 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sengupta DK. Point of view. Spine30, E387(2005).
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta DK. Point of view. Spine30, E391(2005a).
   Google Scholar
• Zindrick MR, Spratt KF. Point of view. Spine32, 1163 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI et al. An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine33(11), 1262–1269 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ, Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J. Spinal. Disord. Tech.16, 369–383 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al. Charite versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine32, 1012–1018 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW et al. Complications and reoperations of the SB Charité lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur. Spine J.17, 36–43 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rundell SA, Auerbach JD, Balderston RA et al. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine33, 2510–2517 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punt IM, Cleutjens, JPM, de Bruin T et al. Periprosthetic tissue reactions observed at revision of total intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials30, 2079–2084 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeh A, Becker C, Planert M et al. Time-dependent release of cobalt and chromium ions into the serum following implantation of the metal-on-metal Maverick type artificial lumbar disc (Medtronic Sofamor Danek). Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg.129, 7410746(2009).
   Google Scholar
• Korovessis PG. Letter to the Editor. Spine33, 1812(2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement. Spine33, 123–131 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ et al. Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guide. Spine34, 1094–1109 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson R, Barker T, Pearcy M. Defining the neutral zone of sheep intervertebral joints during dynamic motions: an in vitro study. Clin. Biomech.18, 89–98 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical biomechanics of the spine. 2nd edition. Lippincott, PA, USA (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Pearcy MJ. Stereo radiography of lumbar spine motion. Acta Orthop. Scand.56, (Suppl. 212), 1–45 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearcy MJ. Twisting mobility of the human back in flexed postures. Spine18, 114–119 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Maat GH, Punt IM, van Rhijn LW et al. Removal of the Charité lumbar artificial disc prosthesis: surgical technique. Spinal Disord. Tech.22, 334–339 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar