Lumbar spine arthroplasty early results using the ProDisc II: A prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 352-361

  Zigler, Jack E ^a   Burd, Timothy A ^a   Vialle, Emiliano N ^a   Sachs, Barton L ^a   Rashbaum, Ralph F ^a   Ohnmeiss, Donna D ^a  

^a TEXAS BACK INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Artificial disc; Disc arthroplasty; Intervertebral disc; Lumbar spine; ProDisc; Prospective study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OPERATION DURATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAFETY; SPINE FUSION; SPINE MOBILITY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; BLEEDING; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISEASE; LOW BACK PAIN; RANGE OF MOTION;

EID: 0042570343     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200308000-00007     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Jackson RK, Boston DA, Edge A. Lateral mass fusion. A prospective study of a consecutive series with long term follow up. Spine. 1985;10:828-832.
2. O'Beirne J, O'Neill D, Williams DH. Spinal fusion for back pain: a clinical and radiological review. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5:32-38.
3. Kiviluoto O, Santavirta S, Salenious P, et al. Posterolateral spine fusion. A 1-4 year follow up of 80 consecutive patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1985;56:152-154.
4. Zdeblick TA. A prospective randomized study of lumbar fusion. Spine. 1993;18:983-991.
5. Zdeblick TA. The treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders. Spine. 1995;20(suppl):126-133.
6. Vamvanji V, Frederickson BE, Thorpe JM, et al. Surgical treatment of internal disc disruption: an outcome study of four fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11:375-382.
7. Wetzel FT, LaRocca SH. The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 1991;16:839-845.
8. Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporeal endoprostheisis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand. 1966;357:154S-159S.
9. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine. 1996;21:995-1000.
10. David TJ. Lumbar disc prosthesis: five years follow-up study on 96 patients. Presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the North American Spine Society, 2000.
11. Griffith SL, Shelekov AP, Büttner-Janz K, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the Link SB Charité intervertebral prosthesis - the initial European experience. Spine. 1994; 19:1842-1849.
12. Hop C, Hecht H, Basket C. Disc replacement with the SB Charité end prosthesis - experience, preliminary results and comments after 35 prospectively performed operations. Z Orthop Hire Grange. 2002;140:485-491.
13. Marnay T. Lumbar disc replacement: 7 to 11-year results with Prodisc. Spine J. 2002;2:94S.
14. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, et al. Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charité III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J. 1999;8:210-217.
15. Enker P, Steffee A, McMillin C, et al. Artificial disc replacement - preliminary report with a 3-tear minimum follow-up. Spine. 1993; 18:1061-1070.
16. 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:S106-S110.
17. Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66:271-273.
18. Huang R, Girardi F, Cammisa F Jr, et al. Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the Prodisc I. Spine J. 2002;2(suppl): 93S.
19. Lee CK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lmnbar fusion. Spine. 1998;13:375-377.
20. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis - results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop. 1997;337: 64-76.
21. 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.
22. 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.