Revision of a lumbar disc arthroplasty following late infection

European Spine Journal

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 677-681

  Spivak, Jeffrey M ^a   Petrizzo, Anthony M ^a  

^a NYU HOSPITAL FOR JOINT DISEASES   (United States)

Author keywords

Anterior lumbar revision surgery; Late Infection; Lumbar disc arthroplasty; Prodisc L

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; C REACTIVE PROTEIN;

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ABSCESS DRAINAGE; ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; BACTERIUM CULTURE; CASE REPORT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DEVICE REMOVAL; ERYTHROCYTE SEDIMENTATION RATE; HUMAN; JOINT PROSTHESIS; LABORATORY TEST; LEG PAIN; LEUKOCYTOSIS; LUMBAR TOTAL DISC ARTHROPLASTY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS INFECTION; PSOAS ABSCESS; RETROPERITONEAL ABSCESS; SPINE FUSION; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; STREPTOCOCCUS INTERMEDIUS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ABSCESS; ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; DISABILITY EVALUATION; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; REOPERATION; RETROPERITONEAL SPACE; SPINAL FUSION; STAPHYLOCOCCAL INFECTIONS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77954535160     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1226-z     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM et al 2007 Results of the prospective, randomized, Multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of the Pro- Disc R -L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32 11 1155-1162\f3
2. Hannibal M, Thomas DJ, Low J et al 2007 ProDisc-L total disc replacement a comparison of 1-level versus 2-level arthroplasty patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine 32 21 2322-2326\f3
3. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD et al 2005 A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions Study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE TM artificial disc versus lumbar fusion part I evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30 14 1565-1575\f3
4. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G 2005 A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE TM artificial disc versus lumbar fusion part II evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 30 14 1576-1583\f3
5. Wagner WH, Regan JJ, Leary SP et al 2006 Access strategies for revision or explantation of the Charite lumbar artificial disc replacement. J Vasc Surg 44 1266-1272\f3
6. McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS et al 2006 Revisability of the Charite artificial disc replacement. Spine 31 1217-1226\f3
7. Patel AA, Brodke DS, Pimenta L et al 2008 Revision strategies in lumbar total disc. Arthroplasty 33 1276-1283\f3
8. Leary SP, Regan JJ, Lanman TH 2007 Revision and explantation strategies involving the Charite lumbar artificial disc replacement. Spine 32 1001-1011\f3
9. Bertagnoli R, Zigler J, Karg A et al 2005 Complications and strategies for revision surgery in total disc replacement. Orthop Clin N Am 36 389-395\f3
10. Zigler JE, Bennett MT 2006 Prodisc lumbar artificial disc in dynamic reconstruction of the spine. In Kim, Cammisa, Fessler eds Thieme Medical Publishers\f3
11. Petrizzo AM, Spivak JM, Song EW, Bendo JA, Errico TJ, Goldstein JA 2005 Adverse events in patients undergoing total disc arthroplasty at a major academic center. A review of 93 patients presented at North American Spine Society, SA5 and IMAST in 2005 \f3
12. Morris CD, Einhorn TA 2000 Principles of orthopaedic pharmacology. In Buckwalter JA, Einhorn TA, Simon SR eds Orthopaedic basic science. AAOS\f3
13. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ et al 2009 Delayed hyperreactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine 34 E262-E265\f3
14. Kostuik JP 2004 Complications and surgical revision for failed disc arthroplasty. Spine J 4 289S-291S\f3