Limitations of Lumbar Disk Arthroplasty
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.
KeywordsBack Pain Degenerative Disk Disease Chronic Pain Patient Lumbar Fusion Adjacent Segment Disease
- 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
- 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.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
- 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