Prosthetic Total Disk Replacement-Can We Learn from Total Hip Replacement?

Orthopedic Clinics of North America

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 543-554

  Mayer, H Michael ^a,b   Siepe, Christoph J ^a,b  

^a Paracelsus Medical School   (Austria)

^b Spine Center   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical; Outcomes; Prospective; Spine arthroplasty; Total disk replacement

Indexed keywords

ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE;

ADJACENT SEGMENT DEGENERATION; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ANATOMICAL VARIATION; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DEVICE SAFETY; ENDOPROSTHESIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OSTEOPENIA; OSTEOPOROSIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS MATERIAL; PROSTHETIC TOTAL DISK REPLACEMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REOPERATION; REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; SPORT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT RESPONSE; WEIGHT BEARING;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 80053212173     PISSN: 00305898     EISSN: 15581373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2011.07.008     Document Type: Review

References (127)

1. Fritzell P., Hagg O., Wessberg P., et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2001, 26:2521-2532. [discussion: 2532-4].
2. Crock H.V. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications for its use and notes on surgical technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982, (165):157-163.
3. Dai L.Y., Jiang L.S. Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion of lumbar spine with beta-tricalcium phosphate versus autograft: a prospective, randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008, 33:1299-1304.
4. DiPaola C.P., Molinari R.W. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008, 16:130-139.
5. Greenough C.G., Taylor L.J., Fraser R.D. Anterior lumbar fusion: results, assessment techniques and prognostic factors. Eur Spine J 1994, 3:225-230.
6. Karikari I.O., Isaacs R.E. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010, 35:S294-S301.
7. Kozak J.A., Heilman A.E., O'Brien J.P. Anterior lumbar fusion options. Technique and graft materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994, (300):45-51.
8. Obenchain T.G. Laparoscopic lumbar discectomy: case report. J Laparoendosc Surg 1991, 1:145-149.
9. Spivak J.M., Neuwirth M.G., Giordano C.P., et al. The perioperative course of combined anterior and posterior spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994, 19:520-525.
10. Stauffer R.N., Coventry M.B. Anterior interbody lumbar spine fusion. Analysis of Mayo Clinic series. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972, 54:756-768.
11. Zucherman J.F., Zdeblick T.A., Bailey S.A., et al. Instrumented laparoscopic spinal fusion. Preliminary results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995, 20:2029-2034. [discussion: 2034-5].
12. Lange F. Operative Behandlung der Spondylitis. Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift 1909, 56. [in German].
13. Weinstein J.N., Lurie J.D., Olson P.R., et al. United States' trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006, 31:2707-2714.
14. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003, 16:338-345.
15. Carreon L.Y., Puno R.M., Dimar J.R., et al. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85:2089-2092.
16. Park P., Garton H.J., Gala V.C., et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004, 29:1938-1944.
17. Ciol M.A., Deyo R.A., Kreuter W., et al. Characteristics in Medicare beneficiaries associated with reoperation after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994, 19:1329-1334.
18. Ghiselli G., Wang J.C., Bhatia N.N., et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86:1497-1503.
19. Malter A.D., McNeney B., Loeser J.D., et al. 5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998, 23:814-820.
20. Martin B.I., Mirza S.K., Comstock B.A., et al. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine 2007, 32:382-387.
21. Taylor V.M., Deyo R.A., Ciol M., et al. Surgical treatment of patients with back problems covered by workers compensation versus those with other sources of payment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996, 21:2255-2259.
22. Carreon L.Y., Glassman S.D., Howard J. Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes. Spine J 2008, 8:747-755.
23. Martin B.I., Mirza S.K., Comstock B.A., et al. Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32:2119-2126.
24. Cinotti G., David T., Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 1996, 21:995-1000.
25. David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 2007, 32:661-666.
26. Delamarter R.B., Fribourg D.M., Kanim L.E., et al. ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine 2003, 28:S167-S175.
27. Le Huec J., Basso Y., Mathews H., et al. The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study. Eur Spine J 2005, 14:480-486.
28. Lemaire J.P., Carrier H., Ali el H.S., et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005, 18:353-359.
29. Siepe C.J., Mayer H.M., Heinz-Leisenheimer M., et al. Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 2007, 32:782-790.
30. Siepe C.J., Mayer H.M., Wiechert K., et al. Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 2006, 31:1923-1932.
31. Siepe C.J., Tepass A., Hitzl W., et al. Dynamics of improvement following total lumbar disc replacement: is the outcome predictable?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:2579-2586.
32. Blumenthal S., McAfee P.C., Guyer R.D., et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 2005, 30:1565-1575. [discussion: E387-91].
33. Guyer R.D., McAfee P.C., Banco R.J., et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 2009, 9:374-386.
34. McAfee P.C., Cunningham B., Holsapple G., et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 2005, 30:1576-1583. [discussion: E388-90].
35. Sasso R.C., Foulk D.M., Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine 2008, 33:123-131.
36. Zigler J., Delamarter R., Spivak J.M., 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, 32:1155-1162. [discussion: 1163].
37. Guyer R.D., Tromanhauser S.G., Regan J.J. An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion. Spine J 2007, 7:558-562.
38. Patel V.V., Estes S., Lindley E.M., et al. Lumbar spinal fusion versus anterior lumbar disc replacement: the financial implications. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008, 21:473-476.
39. Levin D.A., Bendo J.A., Quirno M., et al. Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine 2007, 32:2905-2909.
40. Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Ianuzzi A., et al. National revision burden for lumbar total disc replacement in the United States: epidemiologic and economic perspectives. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010, 35:690-696.
41. Harris W.H. The first 50 years of total hip arthroplasty: lessons learned. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:28-31.
42. Buttner-Janz K., Schellnack K. Beitr Orthop Traumatol 1990, 37:137-147. [in German].
43. Dattani R. Femoral osteolysis following total hip replacement. Postgrad Med J 2007, 83:312-316.
44. Siepe C.J., Zelenkov P., Sauri-Barraza J.C., et al. The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective clinical, x-ray, and magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010, 35:1991-2003.
45. Kafer W., Clessienne C.B., Daxle M., et al. Posterior component impingement after lumbar total disc replacement: a radiographic analysis of 66 ProDisc-L prostheses in 56 patients. Spine 2008, 33:2444-2449.
46. Siepe C.J., Hitzl W., Meschede P., et al. Interdependence between disc space height, range of motion and clinical outcome in total lumbar disc replacement. Spine 2009, 34:904-916.
47. Cakir B., Richter M., Kafer W., et al. The impact of total lumbar disc replacement on segmental and total lumbar lordosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2005, 20:357-364.
48. Tortolani P.J., Cunningham B.W., Eng M., et al. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:82-88.
49. Amundsen T., Weber H., Nordal H.J., et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? a prospective 10-year study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25:1424-1435. [discussion: 1435-6].
50. Guyer RD, Blumenthal S, Cappuccino A. 24-month follow-up of a prospective randomized comparison of two lumbar total disc replacements. 9th Annual Global Symposium of the Spine Arthroplasty Society (SAS) Congress. London, 2009.
51. Tropiano P., Huang R.C., Girardi F.P., et al. Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:490-496.
52. Bertagnoli R., Yue J.J., Shah R.V., et al. The treatment of disabling single-level lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the Prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 2005, 30:2230-2236.
53. Chung S.S., Lee C.S., Kang C.S. Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: a prospective study with a 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006, 19:411-415.
54. Lemaire J.P., Skalli W., Lavaste F., et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997, (337):64-76.
55. Zindrick M.R., Tzermiadianos M.N., Voronov L.I., et al. An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine 2008, 33:1262-1269.
56. David T. Lumbar disc prosthesis: surgical technique, indications and clinical results in 22 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Spine J 1993, 1:254-259.
57. Le Huec J.C., Basso Y., Aunoble S., et al. Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005, 18:219-223.
58. Zeegers W.S., Bohnen L.M., 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, 8:210-217.
59. Bertagnoli R., Yue J.J., Nanieva R., et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: a prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 2006, 4:85-90.
60. Siepe C.J., 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.
61. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Kropf MA, et al. 1 versus 2 versus 3-level lumbar artificial disc replacement-a prospective report of clinical outcomes with the ProDisc-L device. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS). Bergen, Norway, 2006.
62. Hannibal M., Thomas D.J., Low J., et al. ProDisc-L total disc replacement: a comparison of 1-level versus 2-level arthroplasty patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine 2007, 32:2322-2326.
63. 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.
64. Bertagnoli R., Yue J.J., Shah R.V., et al. The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 2005, 30:2192-2199.
65. Griffith S.L., Shelokov A.P., Buttner-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.
66. Tropiano P., Huang R.C., Girardi F.P., et al. Lumbar disc replacement: preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003, 16:362-368.
67. Faciszewski T., Winter R.B., Lonstein J.E., et al. The surgical and medical perioperative complications of anterior spinal fusion surgery in the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults. A review of 1223 procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995, 20:1592-1599.
68. Polly D.W. Adapting innovative motion-preserving technology to spinal surgical practice: what should we expect to happen?. Spine 2003, 28:S104-S109.
69. McAfee P.C., Geisler F.H., Saiedy S.S., et al. Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine 2006, 31:1217-1226.
70. Umehara S., Zindrick M.R., Patwardhan A.G., et al. The biomechanical effect of postoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented and adjacent spinal segments. Spine 2000, 25:1617-1624.
71. Akamaru T., Kawahara N., Tim Yoon S., et al. Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 2003, 28:1560-1566.
72. Lazennec J.Y., Ramare S., Arafati N., et al. Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 2000, 9:47-55.
73. Chung S.S., Lee C.S., Kang C.S., et al. The effect of lumbar total disc replacement on the spinopelvic alignment and range of motion of the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006, 19:307-311.
74. Tournier C., Aunoble S., Le Huec J.C., et al. Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement. Eur Spine J 2007, 16:411-421.
75. Liu J., Ebraheim N.A., Haman S.P., et al. Effect of the increase in the height of lumbar disc space on facet joint articulation area in sagittal plane. Spine 2006, 31:E198-E202.
76. Rohlmann A., Zander T., Bergmann G. Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2005, 30:738-743.
77. Cunningham B.W. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2004, 4:219S-230S.
78. Cunningham B.W., Gordon J.D., Dmitriev A.E., et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2003, 28:S110-S117.
79. Denoziere G., Ku D.N. Biomechanical comparison between fusion of two vertebrae and implantation of an artificial intervertebral disc. J Biomech 2006, 39:766-775.
80. Dooris A.P., Goel V.K., Grosland N.M., et al. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 2001, 26:E122-E129.
81. McAfee P.C., Cunningham B.W., Hayes V., et al. Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 2006, 31:S152-S160.
82. O'Leary P., Nicolakis M., Lorenz M.A., et al. Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J 2005, 5:590-599.
83. Rousseau M.A., Bradford D.S., Bertagnoli R., et al. Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 2006, 6:258-266.
84. Rohlmann A., Mann A., Zander T., et al. Effect of an artificial disc on lumbar spine biomechanics: a probabilistic finite element study. Eur Spine J 2009, 18:89-97.
85. Chen S.H., Zhong Z.C., Chen C.S., et al. Biomechanical comparison between lumbar disc arthroplasty and fusion. Med Eng Phys 2009, 31(2):244-253.
86. Rundell S.A., Auerbach J.D., Balderston R.A., et al. Total disc replacement positioning affects facet contact forces and vertebral body strains. Spine 2008, 33:2510-2517.
87. Chung S.K., Kim Y.E., Wang K.C. Biomechanical effect of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement: a study with finite element analysis. Spine 2009, 34:1281-1286.
88. 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, 31:1726-1733.
89. Rousseau M.A., Bradford D.S., Hadi T.M., et al. The instant axis of rotation influences facet forces at L5/S1 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Eur Spine J 2006, 15:299-307.
90. Shim C.S., Lee S.H., Shin H.D., et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 2007, 32:1012-1018.
91. Park C.K., Ryu K.S., Jee W.H. Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 2008, 33:1755-1761.
92. Huang R.C., Tropiano P., Marnay T., et al. Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 2006, 6:242-247.
93. Auerbach J.D., Wills B.P., McIntosh T.C., et al. Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 2007, 32:527-536.
94. Dmitriev A.E., Gill N.W., Kuklo T.R., et al. The effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures. An in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine J 2008, 8(6):918-925.
95. Panjabi M., Malcolmson G., Teng E., et al. Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine 2007, 32:959-966. [discussion: 967].
96. Anderson P.A., Schwaegler P.E., Cizek D., et al. Work status as a predictor of surgical outcome of discogenic low back pain. Spine 2006, 31:2510-2515.
97. Du Bois M., Donceel P. A screening questionnaire to predict no return to work within 3 months for low back pain claimants. Eur Spine J 2008, 17:380-385.
98. Enthoven P., Skargren E., Carstensen J., et al. Predictive factors for 1-year and 5-year outcome for disability in a working population of patients with low back pain treated in primary care. Pain 2006, 122:137-144.
99. 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.
100. Hakkinen A., Ylinen J., Kautiainen H., et al. Does the outcome 2 months after lumbar disc surgery predict the outcome 12 months later?. Disabil Rehabil 2003, 25:968-972.
101. Junge A., Frohlich M., Ahrens S., et al. Predictors of bad and good outcome of lumbar spine surgery. A prospective clinical study with 2 years' follow up. Spine 1996, 21:1056-1064. [discussion: 1064-5].
102. Lawrence J.T., London N., Bohlman H.H., et al. Preoperative narcotic use as a predictor of clinical outcome: results following anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 2008, 33:2074-2078.
103. Mannion A.F., Elfering A. Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J 2006, 15(Suppl 1):S93-S108.
104. Miettinen T., Leino E., Airaksinen O., et al. The possibility to use simple validated questionnaires to predict long-term health problems after whiplash injury. Spine 2004, 29:E47-E51.
105. Peolsson A., Vavruch L., Oberg B. Can the results 6 months after anterior cervical decompression and fusion identify patients who will have remaining deficit at long-term?. Disabil Rehabil 2006, 28:117-124.
106. Saberi H., Isfahani A.V. Higher preoperative Oswestry Disability Index is associated with better surgical outcome in upper lumbar disc herniations. Eur Spine J 2008, 17:117-121.
107. Guyer R.D., Siddiqui S., Zigler J.E., et al. Lumbar spinal arthroplasty: analysis of one center's twenty best and twenty worst clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008, 33:2566-2569.
108. Siepe C.J., Wiechert K., Khattab M.F., et al. Total lumbar disc replacement in athletes: clinical results, return to sport and athletic performance. Eur Spine J 2007, 16:1001-1013.
109. Cakir B., Carazzo C., Schmidt R., et al. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:1287-1291.
110. Grob D., Benini A., Junge A., et al. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine 2005, 30:324-331.
111. Putzier M., Schneider S.V., Funk J.F., et al. The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine 2005, 30:E109-E114.
112. Stoll T.M., Dubois G., Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 2002, 11(Suppl 2):S170-S178.
113. Zucherman J.F., Hsu K.Y., Hartjen C.A., et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30:1351-1358.
114. Zucherman J.F., Hsu K.Y., Hartjen C.A., et al. A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J 2004, 13:22-31.
115. Brussee P., Hauth J., Donk R.D., et al. Self-rated evaluation of outcome of the implantation of interspinous process distraction (X-Stop) for neurogenic claudication. Eur Spine J 2008, 17:200-203.
116. Kondrashov D.G., Hannibal M., Hsu K.Y., et al. Interspinous process decompression with the X-STOP device for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 4-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006, 19:323-327.
117. Siddiqui M., Smith F.W., Wardlaw D. One-year results of X Stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32:1345-1348.
118. Mayer H.M., Zentz F., Siepe C., et al. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010, 22:495-511. [in German].
119. Siepe C.J., Heider F., Beisse R., et al. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010, 22:524-535. [in German].
120. Charles Y.P., Persohn S., Steib J.P., et al. Influence of an auxiliary facet system on lumbar spine biomechanics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011, 36(9):690-699.
121. Brox J.I., Sorensen R., Friis A., et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28:1913-1921.
122. Goulet J.A., Senunas L.E., DeSilva G.L., et al. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997, (339):76-81.
123. Kumar M.N., Jacquot F., Hall H. Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2001, 10:309-313.
124. Lee C.K. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 1988, 13:375-377.
125. Shah R.R., Mohammed S., Saifuddin A., et al. Radiologic evaluation of adjacent superior segment facet joint violation following transpedicular instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2003, 28:272-275.
126. Cardoso M.J., Dmitriev A.E., Helgeson M., et al. Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment. Spine 2008, 33:2868-2873.
127. Moshirfar A., Jenis L.G., Spector L.R., et al. Computed tomography evaluation of superior-segment facet-joint violation after pedicle instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a midline surgical approach. Spine 2006, 31:2624-2629.