Advertisement

Limitations of Lumbar Disk Arthroplasty

  • Serena S. Hu
Chapter

Abstract

Motion-sparing devices such as lumbar disk replacement have revolutionized lumbar spine surgery and have the potential to maintain patient mobility and decrease the risk of adjacent segment disease. However, these devices need to be used with caution, including careful adherence to proper indications and meticulous surgical technique. The limited information we have about their long-term durability and effectiveness should lead us to be cautious about their implantation in young patients. Continued follow-up of patients in the long-term is required, and we should be wary of potential long-term effects on the adjacent tissues.

Keywords

Back Pain Degenerative Disk Disease Chronic Pain Patient Lumbar Fusion Adjacent Segment Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS et al (1990) Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72(3):403–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carragee EJ (2000) Is lumbar discography a determinate of discogenic low back pain: provocative discography reconsidered. Curr Rev Pain 4(4):301–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller JL et al (2005) Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: a prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. Spine J 5(1):24–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chin KR (2007) Epidemiology of indications and contraindications to total disc replacement in an academic practice. Spine J 7(4):392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fras CI, Auerbach JD (2008) Prevalence of lumbar total disc replacement candidates in a community-based spinal surgery practice. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(2):126–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP et al (2004) The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine 29(22):2538–2541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wong DA, Annesser B, Birney T et al (2007) Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis. Spine J 7(1):5–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuslich SD, Danielson G, Dowdle JD et al (2000) Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine 25(20):2656–2662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Button G, Gupta M, Barrett C et al (2005) Three- to six-year follow-up of stand-alone BAK cages implanted by a single surgeon. Spine J 5(2):155–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Lee GA et al (1999) Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages. Spine 24(20):2147–2153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McAfee PC, Lee GA, Fedder IL et al (2002) Anterior BAK instrumentation and fusion: complete versus partial discectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 394:55–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen SP, Williams S, Kurihara C et al (2005) Nucleoplasty with or without intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) as a treatment for lumbar herniated disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S119–S124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freeman BJ (2006) IDET: a critical appraisal of the evidence. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 3):S448–S457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maurer P, Block JE, Squillante D (2008) Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) provides effective symptom relief in patients with discogenic low back pain. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(1):55–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleinstueck FS, Diederich CJ, Nau WH et al (2003) Temperature and thermal dose distributions during intradiscal electrothermal therapy in the cadaveric lumbar spine. Spine 28(15):1700–1708; discussion 1709Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC et al (2007) Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fluoroscopy. Spine 32(5):527–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cunningham BW, Gordon JD, Dmitriev AE et al (2003) Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 28(20):S110–S117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cunningham BW, McAfee PC, Geisler FH et al (2008) Distribution of in vivo and in vitro range of motion following 1-level arthroplasty with the CHARITE artificial disc compared with fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 8(1):7–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Leary P, Nicolakis M, Lorenz MA et al (2005) Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns. Spine J 5(6):590–599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rohlmann A, Zander T, Bergmann G (2005) Effect of total disc replacement with ProDisc on intersegmental rotation of the lumbar spine. Spine 30(7):738–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Bertagnoli R et al (2006) Disc arthroplasty design influences intervertebral kinematics and facet forces. Spine J 6(3):258–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cunningham BW (2004) Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 4(6 Suppl):219S–230SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rawlinson JJ, Punga KP, Gunsallus KL et al (2007) Wear simulation of the ProDisc-L disc replacement using adaptive finite element analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 7(2):165–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(7):1497–1503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T et al (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6(3):242–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali W et al (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(4):353–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30(14):1565–1575; discussion E387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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 ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32(11):155–162; discussion 1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Hayes V et al (2006) Biomechanical analysis of rotational motions after disc arthroplasty: implications for patients with adult deformities. Spine 31(19 Suppl):S152–S160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carragee EJ, Alamin TF, Miller J et al (2002) Provocative discography in volunteer subjects with mild persistent low back pain. Spine J 2(1):25–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carragee EJ, Lincoln T, Parmar VS et al (2006) A gold standard evaluation of the “discogenic pain” diagnosis as determined by provocative discography. Spine 31(18):2115–2123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davis TT, Delamarter RB, Sra P et al (2004) The IDET procedure for chronic discogenic low back pain. Spine 29(7):752–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Freeman BJ, Fraser RD, Cain CM et al (2005) A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial: intradiscal electrothermal therapy versus placebo for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Spine 30(21):2369–2377; discussion 2378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, et al (2005) 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 30(14):1576–1583; discussion E388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saal JA, Saal JS (2002) Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain: prospective outcome study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine 27(9):966–973; discussion 973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K et al (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 31(17):1923–1932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thierry D (2007) Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 32(6):661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations