Index level mobility after total lumbar disc replacement: Is it beneficial or detrimental?

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 917-923

  Cakir, Balkan ^a   Schmidt, René ^a   Mattes, Thomas ^a   Fraitzl, Christian R ^a   Reichel, Heiko ^a   Käfer, Wolfram ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Degenerative disc disease; Radiographic analysis; Range of motion; Total disc replacement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FLEXOR REFLEX; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LUMBAR DISK; MALE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OSWESTRY LOW BACK PAIN DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SHORT FORM 36; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; SPINE SURGERY; TOTAL LUMBAR DISC REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISKECTOMY; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 67650727276     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819b213c     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Summers BN, Eisenstein SM. Donor site pain from the ilium. A complication of lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989;71:677-80.
2. Lee C, Dorcil J, Radomisli TE. Nonunion of the spine: a review. Clin Orthop 2004:71-5.
3. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:338-45.
4. Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966;357:154-9.
5. Cakir B, Schmidt R, Huch K, et al. Sagittales Alignement und segmentale Beweglichkeit nach endoprothetischer Versorgung lumbaler Bewegungsseg-mente. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2004;142:159-65.
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):131-6.
7. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the prodisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:435-40.
8. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al. Lumbar Disc Replacement. Preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:362-8.
9. Cakir B, Richter M, Puhl W, et al. Reliability of motion measurements after total disc replacement: the spike and the fin method. Eur Spine J 2006;15: 165-73.
10. Cakir B, Richter M, Käfer W, et al. Evaluation of lumbar spine motion with dynamic x-ray. a reliability analysis. Spine 2006;31:1258-64.
11. Mayer HM, Korge A. Non-fusion technology in degenerative lumbar spinal disorders: facts, questions, challenges. Eur Spine J 2002;11(suppl 2):85-91.
12. Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, et al. Charite total disc replacement-clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 2005;28.
13. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine 2005;30:1407-11.
14. Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW, etal. Complications and reoperations of the SB Charité lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 2008;17:36-43.
15. Siepe CJ, Korge A, Grochulla F, et al. Analysis of post-operative pain patterns following total lumbar disc replacement: results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations. Eur Spine J 2008;17:44 -56.
16. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 2007;32:1012-8.
17. Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC, et al. Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 2007;32:527-36.
18. 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; 31:1726-33.
19. Tournier C, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC, et al. Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 2007; 16:411-21.
20. Kim DH, Ryu KS, Kim MK, et al. Factors influencing segmental range of motion after lumbar total disc replacement using the ProDisc II prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7:131-8.
21. Ritter MA, Harty LD, Davis KE, et al. Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Clustering, log-linear regression, and regression tree analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-a:1278-85.