Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Standortbestimmung der lumbalen Bandscheibenendoprothetik

State of the art of lumbar intervertebral disc replacement

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die lumbale Bandscheibenprothese findet als alternative operative Methode zur interkorporellen Fusion eine zunehmende klinische Verbreitung. Die möglichen Vorteile für den Patienten ergeben sich durch den Erhalt der Beweglichkeit bei Ersatz der symptomatischen, degenerativen Bandscheibe durch einen beweglichen Platzhalter, der die physiologische Funktion der Bandscheibe wiederherstellen und Schmerzen verhindern soll. Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt ist noch unklar, ob die Bandscheibenendoprothetik an der Lendenwirbelsäule langfristig effektiver und sicherer ist als die Fusion oder die konservative Behandlung. Probleme der Bandscheibenendoprothetik stellen die Indikationsstellung und die Komplikationen dar. Die vorliegenden Ergebnisse der aktuellen Studien zeigen, dass die Ergebnisse der Prothesen kurz- und mittelfristig mit den Ergebnissen der Fusion vergleichbar sind.

Abstract

Lumbar intervertebral total disc replacement is becoming more commonly employed for patients with degenerative disc disease as an alternative to spinal arthrodesis. Postulated advantages for the patients are motion preservation and height restoration in the affected segment, preventing adjacent level degeneration. Although studies show short and mid-term results which are comparable to spinal fusion, to date the long-term outcome is not clear. The different types of artificial discs and the current status of lumbar disc replacement are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. 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 Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1565–1575; discussion E1387–E1591

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer R et al (2002) Artificial intervertebral discs and beyond: a North American Spine Society Annual Meeting symposium. Spine J 2:460–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boden SD, Balderston RA, Heller JG et al (2004) An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low-back and neck pain? J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 86-A:411–422

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carragee EJ, Alamin TF (2001) Discography. A review. Spine J 1:364–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cleveland DA (1955) The use of methylacrylic for spinal stabilization after disc operations. Marquette Med Rev 20:62–64

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eyre DR, Benya P, Buckwalter J (1989) The intervertebral disc. Part B: Basic sciences perspectives. In: Frymoyer JW, Gordon SL (eds) New perspectives in low back pain. Park Ridge, New Orleans, pp 147–152

  7. Eysel P, Zöllner J, Heine J (2000) Die künstliche Bandscheibe. Dtsch Arztebl 97:A3092–A3096

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fairbank J (2002) Clinical importance of the intervertebral disc, or back pain for biochemists. Biochem Soc Trans 30:829–831

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernström U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand 357(suppl):154–159

    Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman BJ, Davenport J (2006) Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15(suppl 3):S439–S447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S (1996) The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:626–633

    Google Scholar 

  12. Frymoyer JW, Hanley EN Jr, Howe J et al (1979) A comparison of radiographic findings in fusion and nonfusion patients ten or more years following lumbar disc surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 4:435–440

    Google Scholar 

  13. Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD et al (2004) Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charité intervertebral disc. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1:143–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gower WE, Pedrini V (1969) Age-related variations in proteinpolysaccharides from human nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosus, and costal cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 51:1154–1162

    Google Scholar 

  15. Guyer RD, Mcafee PC, Banco RJ et al (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9:374–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamby WB, Glaser HT (1959) Replacement of spinal intervertebral discs with locally polymerizing methyl methacrylate: experimental study of effects upon tissues and report of a small clinical series. J Neurosurg 16:311–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jahnke MR, McDevitt CA (1988) Proteoglycans of the human intervertebral disc. Electrophoretic heterogeneity of the aggregating proteoglycans of the nucleus pulposus. Biochem J 251:347–356

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kolditz D, Kramer J, Gowin R (1985) Water and electrolyte content of human intervertebral disks under varying load. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 123:235–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kostuik JP (1997) Intervertebral disc replacement. In: Bridwell KH, De Wald RL (eds) The textbook of spinal surgery. Lipincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 2257–2266

  20. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:375–377

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mayer HM (2005) Total lumbar disc replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87:1029–1037

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oegema TR Jr (1993) Biochemistry of the intervertebral disc. Clin Sports Med 12:419–439

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schrader P, Grob D, Rahn BA (1993) Histological changes in the ligamentum flavum in patients with spinal stenosis. Orthopade 22:223–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, Van Royen BJ et al (2010) Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 19:1262–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vaughan PA, Malcolm BW, Maistrelli GL (1988) Results of L4-L5 disc excision alone versus disc excision and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:690–695

  26. Yajun W, Yue Z, Xiuxin H et al (2010) A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 19:1250–1261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zindrick MR, Tzermiadianos MN, Voronov LI et al (2008) An evidence-based medicine approach in determining factors that may affect outcome in lumbar total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1262–1269

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Uniklinik Köln, Joseph-Stelzmann-Str. 9, 50924, Köln, Deutschland

    K. Zarghooni, J. Siewe & P. Eysel

Authors
  1. K. Zarghooni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Siewe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Eysel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Zarghooni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zarghooni, K., Siewe, J. & Eysel, P. Standortbestimmung der lumbalen Bandscheibenendoprothetik. Orthopäde 40, 141–147 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-010-1713-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-010-1713-2

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation