Literature DB >> 21153016

[Keel-based lumbar total disk replacement: Prodisc-L and Prodisc-O].

Michael Ogon1, Alexander Tuschel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Improvement of chronic low back pain caused by degenerative disc disease. Maintenance of motion in the treated segment. Reduction of possible adjacent-segment degeneration. INDICATIONS: Chronic low back pain, resistant to conservative therapy due to painful degeneration of the intervertebral disks ("degenerative disk disease"). CONTRAINDICATIONS: Spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, osteoporosis, infection, spinal stenosis, degeneration of the vertebral articulations, (pathologic) fractures. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: The intervertebral disk is removed via an anterior (Prodisc- L) or anterolateral (Prodisc-O) approach. The segment is sufficiently mobilized, if necessary, by release of the posterior longitudinal ligament. After end-plate preparation, a groove for the keel is chiseled, the end plates are inserted, and the inlay is securely locked in place. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Careful beginning of food intake for prophylaxis of ileus. Early mobilization starting on the 1st day after surgery.
RESULTS: From April 2002 to February 2008, 87 Prodisc-L intervertebral disk prostheses were implanted in 71 patients (43 women, 28 men, average age 45 years). Clinical evaluation was based on the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the SF-36 questionnaire. Follow-up assessment also included radiographic views of the lumbar spine in two planes in flexion and extension and standing. The follow-up interval for all patients was at least 1 year and 2 years for 62 patients. After 2 years, 42 patients were very satisfied with the operation, 13 patients were satisfied, and seven patients were less satisfied. The clinical parameters recorded on the VAS, ODI, and SF-36 improved from 7.5 to 3.5 (VAS), 46.0 to 22.9 (ODI), and 30.5 to 44.8 (SF-36, Physical Component Summary Score) from the time of preoperative assessment to the 2-year follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21153016     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-010-9020-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.154


  25 in total

1.  Mobility of lumbar segments instrumented with a ProDisc II prosthesis: a two-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Gunnar Leivseth; Sjur Braaten; Wolfgang Frobin; Paul Brinckmann
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up.

Authors:  Russel C Huang; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa; Moe R Lim; Patrick Tropiano; Thierry Marnay
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The effect of lumbar total disc replacement on the spinopelvic alignment and range of motion of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Sung Soo Chung; Chong Suh Lee; Chang Seok Kang; Sang Hyun Kim
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2006-07

5.  The effect of single-level, total disc arthroplasty on sagittal balance parameters: a prospective study.

Authors:  Jc Le Huec; Y Basso; H Mathews; A Mehbod; S Aunoble; T Friesem; T Zdeblick
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  The impact of total lumbar disc replacement on segmental and total lumbar lordosis.

Authors:  Balkan Cakir; Marcus Richter; Wolfram Käfer; Wolfhart Puhl; René Schmidt
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.063

7.  Total disc arthroplasty: consequences for sagittal balance and lumbar spine movement.

Authors:  C Tournier; S Aunoble; J C Le Huec; J P Lemaire; P Tropiano; V Lafage; W Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-09-08       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee; Bryan Cunningham; Gwen Holsapple; Karen Adams; Scott Blumenthal; Richard D Guyer; Anton Dmietriev; James H Maxwell; John J Regan; Jorge Isaza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  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.

Authors:  Scott Blumenthal; Paul C McAfee; Richard D Guyer; Stephen H Hochschuler; Fred H Geisler; Richard T Holt; Rolando Garcia; John J Regan; Donna D Ohnmeiss
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Interdependence between disc space height, range of motion and clinical outcome in total lumbar disc replacement.

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Wolfgang Hitzl; Peter Meschede; Ajay K Sharma; Mohamed F Khattab; Michael H Mayer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  We Need to Talk about Lumbar Total Disc Replacement.

Authors:  Stephen Beatty
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-03
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.