Artificial disc: Current developments in artificial disc replacement

Current Opinion in Orthopaedics

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 138-143

  McCullen, Geoffrey M ^b   Yuan, Hansen A ^a  

^a SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Neurological and Spinal Surgery   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; DEVICE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; LUMBAR DISK; LUMBAR SPINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPINE SURGERY;

EID: 0037867766     PISSN: 10419918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001433-200306000-00003     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Ray CD, Corbin TP: Prosthetic disc and method of implanting. United States patent no. 4,772,287 (September 20, 1988) and 4,904,260 (February 27, 1990).
2. Klara PM, Ray CD: Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 2002, 27:1374-1377. This is an essential review and clinical update on the PDN, the prototypic nucleus replacement.
3. Meyers M, Weinandt B: Understanding end plate changes associated with disc surgery. Spine J 2002, 2:112-113.
4. Buarngartner W: Intervertebral prosthesis. United States patent no. 5,171,280 (December 15, 1992).
5. Bao QB, Yuan HA: New technologies in spine: nucleus replacement. Spine 2002, 27:1245-1247.
6. Bao QP: Hydrogel intervertebral disc nucleus. United States patent no. 5,047,055 (September 10, 1991) and 5,192,326 (March 9, 1993).
7. Salib RM, Pettine KA: Intervertebral disk arthroplasty. United States patent no. 5,258,031 (November 2, 1993).
8. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Shikinami Y, et al.: Artificial intervertebral disc replacement using bioactive three-dimensional fabric: design, development and preliminary animal study. Spine 2002, 27:929-935. This article introduces the 3-DF disc: biomechanical and in vivo assessments that highlight the problems of reproducing disc dynamics and achieving adequate device fixation.
9. Buettner-Janz K, Helisch HJ, Schellnack K, et al.: Intervertebral disc endoprosthesis. United States patent no. 4,759,766 (July 26, 1988).
10. Cunningham B, Gordon J, Dmitriev A, et al.: Biomechanical evaluation of total disc arthroplasty: an in-vitro human cadaveric model. Spine J 2002, 2:104.
11. Marnay T: Prosthesis for intervertebral discs and instruments for implanting it. United States patent no. 5,314,477 (May 24, 1994).
12. Spine Solutions GmbH: Company literature. Tuttlingen, Germany: Spine Solutions GmbH; 2002.
13. Wigfield CC, Gill SS, Nelson RJ, et al.: The new Frenchay artificial cervical joint: results from a two-year pilot study. Spine 2002, 27:2446-2452.
14. Wigfield C, Gill S, Nelson R, et al.: Influence of an artificial cervical joint compared with fusion on adjacent-level motion in the treatment of degenerative cervical disc disease. J Neurosurg 2002, 96:17-21. This is an effective study demonstrating the detrimental effects of fusion on the adjacent segments and how the artificial disc may help to diminish these sequelae.
15. Goffin J, Casey A, Kehr P, et al.: Preliminary clinical experience with the Bryan cervical disc prosthesis. Neurosurgery 2002, 51:840-847.
16. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Devine JG, et al.: Classification of heterotopic ossification in artificial disc replacement. Spine J 2002, 2:94-95. A very workable classification is presented that is needed to standardize the analysis of the development and degree of periprosthetic ossification that adversely affects segmental motion.
17. Moore RJ, Fraser RD, Vernon-Roberts B, et al.: The biologic response to particles from a lumbar disc prosthesis. Spine 2002, 27:2088-2094. Future studies like this one will be required to delineate better the affect of disc replacement particulate debris. This study examines the affects of polyolefin rubber particles.
18. McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Shimamoto N, et al.: General principles of porous ingrowth total disc replacement arthroplasty compared with diarthrodial total joint arthroplasty: a nonhuman primate model. Spine J 2002, 2:22.