ProDisc-L total disc replacement: A comparison of 1-level versus 2-level arthroplasty patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up

Spine

Volumn 32, Issue 21, 2007, Pages 2322-2326

  Hannibal, Matthew ^b,c   Thomas, Derek J ^a   Low, Jeffrey ^b   Hsu, Ken Y ^b   Zucherman, James ^b  

^a Greater Pittsburgh Orthopaedic Associates   (United States)

^b ST MARY S MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical outcome; Lumbar arthroplasty; Multilevel disc replacement; ProDisc; Prospective study; Total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LUMBAR ARTHROPLASTY; LUMBAR DISK; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHORT FORM 36; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; STUDENT T TEST; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; JOINT PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 34848902938     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181557c06     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Federico PG, et al. Lumbar total disc replacement: seven to eleven year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:490-6.
2. Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, et al. Prospective study evaluating total disc replacement: preliminary results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:450-4.
3. 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(suppl):167-75.
4. Ipsen BJ, Tromanhauser SG, Jenis LG, et al. Do the clinical outcomes differ for single versus multiple level fusions for chronic low back pain? A comparative study of one versus two versus three-level fusion. Annual Meeting of the International Society for Surgery of the Lumbar Spine, New York, 2005.
5. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3.
6. Roland M, Fairbank JC. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine 2000;25:3115-24.
7. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 1996;21:995-1000.
8. 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;8:210-7.
9. Zigler JE. Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J 2004;4(suppl):260 -7.
10. Khatri M, Norris H, Ross ERS. Results of 226 Charite III Disc Arthroplasty done in 160 patients with an average follow-up of 79 months. Annual Meeting of the International Society for Surgery of the Lumbar Spine, New York, 2005.
11. Auerbach JD, McIntosh T, Willis BP, et al. Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus fusion: two-year results from a randomized prospective study. Annual Meeting of the International Society for Surgery of the Lumbar Spine, New York, 2005.
12. Biyani A, Patel T, Grauer JN, et al. The effect of disc arthroplasty design on lumbar kinematics and loading-a finite element model analysis. Annual Meeting of the International Society for Surgery of the Lumbar Spine, New York, 2005.
13. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Ekselius L, et al. Predictors of outcome in fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: a report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study. Eur Spine J 2003;12:22-33.