Nucleus replacement with the DASCOR disc arthroplasty device: Interim two-year efficacy and safety results from two prospective, non-randomized multicenter european studies

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 13, 2009, Pages 1376-1384

  Ahrens, Michael ^a,k   Tsantrizos, Anthony ^b   Donkersloot, Peter ^c   Martens, Frederic ^d   Lauweryns, Philippe ^e   Le Huec, Jean Charles ^f   Moszko, Slawomir ^g   Fekete, Zsolt ^h   Sherman, John ⁱ   Yuan, Hansen A ^j   Halm, Henry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN   (Germany)

^b Disc Dynamics Inc   (United States)

^c VIRGA JESSE HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^d OLV HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^f UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^g Klinikum Deggendorf   (Germany)

^h Roland Klinik   (Germany)

ⁱ Twin Cities Orthopaedics   (United States)

^j State University of New York Upstate Medical University: College of Medicine   (United States)

^k Clinic of Spine Surgery with Scoliosis Center   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Clinical study; Degenerative disc disease; Intervertebral disc; Lumbar spine; Nucleus prosthesis; Prospective studies

Indexed keywords

COCODAMOL; DEXTROPROPOXYPHENE; IBUPROFEN; NAPROXEN; PENTAZOCINE; PIROXICAM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHRITIS; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; BONE PAIN; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; ISCHIALGIA; KNEE PAIN; LEG PAIN; LOW BACK PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MIGRAINE; MUSCLE SPASM; PAIN; PARESTHESIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICULAR PAIN; RADIODIAGNOSIS; SPINE FUSION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; BACK PAIN; DISKECTOMY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EUROPE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67749113555     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a3967f     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bao QB, Yuan HA. Prosthetic disc replacement: the future? Clin Orthop 2002:139-145
2. Bao QB, Yuan HA. New technologies in spine: nucleus replacement. Spine 2002;27:1245-1247
3. Fernstrom U. Arthroplasty with intercorporeal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966;357:154-159
4. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M. Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 2002;11(suppl 2):S65- 84.
5. Rosales-Olivares LM, Perez-Viquez A, Miramontes-Martinez V, et al. Experience with prosthetic disc nucleus device in Mexico. Final report of a 4-year follow-up. s 2007;75:31-36
6. Beaubien BP, Freeman AL, Sherman TN, et al. Subsidence characteristics of two nucleus replacement devices compared to a PEEK interbody fusion device. In: Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) 7th Annual Meeting: Global Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology; 2007.
7. Schnake KJ, Weigert F, Kandziora F, et al. Local vertebral body destruction after migration of a nucleus replacement. Z Orthop Unfall 2007;145: 649-651 (Pubitemid 350068307)
8. Ray C. The Raymedica Prosthetic Disk Nucleus (PDN): Stabilizing the Degenerated Lumbar Vertebral Segment Without Fusion or Total Disk Replacement. New York, NY: Thienne Medical Publishers; 2006:105-113.
9. Tsantrizos A, Ordway N, Martz E, et al. Mechanical and biomechanical characterization of a polyurethane nucleus replacement device injected and in situ cured within a balloon. SAS J 2008;2:28-39.
10. Lacy S, Streicker MA, Wustenberg W, et al. A RasH2 mouse model to study the carcinogenic potential of the DASCOR device. In: Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) 6th Annual Meeting; 2006:46.
11. Cunningham BW, Hu N, Beatson HJ, et al. An investigational study of nucleus pulposus replacement using an in-situ curable polyurethane. An in vivo non-human primate model. In: Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) 7th Annual Meeting: Global Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology; 2007.
12. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-273 (Pubitemid 11234479)
13. Melkerson MN. Summary of safety and effectiveness, Prodisc-L total disc replacement. In: Administration FDA, ed. PMA Approval Document P050010; 2006.
14. Tillman DT. Summary of safety and effectiveness, CHARITÉ artificial disc. In: Administration FDA, ed. PMA Approval Document P040006; 2004.
15. 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. Spine 2007;32: 1155-62; discussion 63. (Pubitemid 46743014)
16. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. A prospective, randomized, multi-centermulti-center Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion, part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1565-75; discussion E387-91. (Pubitemid 41024950)
17. Klara PM, Ray CD. Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 2002;27:1374-1377
18. Tsantrizos AST, Aebi M, Steffen T. Internal strains in the healthy lumbar intervertebral disc (also sumb. for basic award). Eur Spine J 2003;12:S35.
19. Fennell AJ, Jones AP, Hukins DW. Migration of the nucleus pulposus within the intervertebral disc during flexion and extension of the spine. Spine 1996; 21:2753-2757
20. Brault JS, Driscoll DM, Laakso LL, et al. Quantification of lumbar intradiscal deformation during flexion and extension, by mathematical analysis of magnetic resonance imaging pixel intensity profiles. Spine 1997; 22:2066-2072