Cervical and Lumbar Spinal Arthroplasty: Clinical Review

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Cloward RB

   . Vertebral body fusion for ruptured cervical discs. Am J Surg 1959; 98: 722– 27

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Bailey RW,
   2. Badgley CE

   . Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1960; 42-A: 565– 94

   PubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Robinson RA

   . The problem of neck pain: its alleviation by anterior removal of intervertebral disc with interbody fusion in the cervical spine. J Med Assoc State Ala 1963; 33: 1– 14

   PubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Smith GW,
   2. Robinson RA

   . The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958; 40-A: 607– 24

   PubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Chiles BW 3rd.,
   2. Leonard MA,
   3. Choudhri HF,
   4. et al

   . Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurgery 1999; 44: 762– 69, discussion 769–70

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Bohlman HH,
   2. Emery SE,
   3. Goodfellow DB,
   4. et al

   . Robinson anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for cervical radiculopathy: long-term follow-up of one hundred and twenty-two patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1298– 307

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Fernström U

   . Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966; 357: 154– 59

   PubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Reitz H,
   2. Joubert MJ

   . Intractable headache and cervico-brachialgia treated by complete replacement of cervical intervertebral discs with a metal prosthesis. S Afr Med J 1964; 38: 881– 84

   PubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Baaj AA,
   2. Uribe JS,
   3. Vale FL,
   4. et al

   . History of cervical disc arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2009; 27: E10

   PubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Le H,
    2. Thongtrangan I,
    3. Kim DH

    . Historical review of cervical arthroplasty. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 15 17: E1
11. 11.↵
    1. Bartolomei JC,
    2. Theodore N,
    3. Sonntag VK

    . Adjacent level degeneration after anterior cervical fusion: a clinical review. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2005; 16: 575– 87, v

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Wu W,
    2. Thuomas KA,
    3. Hedlund R,
    4. et al

    . Degenerative changes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion evaluated by fast spin-echo MR imaging. Acta Radiol 1996; 37: 614– 17

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Goffin J,
    2. Geusens E,
    3. Vantomme N,
    4. et al

    . Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004; 17: 79– 85

    PubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Lunsford LD,
    2. Bissonette DJ,
    3. Jannetta PJ,
    4. et al

    . Anterior surgery for cervical disc disease. Part 1. Treatment of lateral cervical disc herniation in 253 cases. J Neurosurg 1980; 53: 1– 11

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Hilibrand AS,
    2. Carlson GD,
    3. Palumbo MA,
    4. et al

    . Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81: 519– 28

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Eck JC,
    2. Humphreys SC,
    3. Lim TH,
    4. et al

    . Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 2431– 34

    CrossRef
17. 17.↵
    1. Hwang SH,
    2. Kayanja M,
    3. Milks RA,
    4. et al

    . Biomechanical comparison of adjacent segmental motion after ventral cervical fixation with varying angles of lordosis. Spine J 2007; 7: 216– 21

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Fuller DA,
    2. Kirkpatrick JS,
    3. Emery SE,
    4. et al

    . A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998; 23: 1649– 56

    CrossRef
19. 19.↵
    1. Dmitriev AE,
    2. Cunningham BW,
    3. Hu N,
    4. et al

    . Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1165– 72

    CrossRef
20. 20.↵
    1. Chang UK,
    2. Kim DH,
    3. Lee MC,
    4. et al

    . Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 33– 39

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Chang UK,
    2. Kim DH,
    3. Lee MC,
    4. et al

    . Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 40– 46

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. DiAngelo DJ,
    2. Foley KT,
    3. Morrow BR,
    4. et al

    . In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus 2004; 17: E7

    PubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Auerbach JD,
    2. Jones KJ,
    3. Fras CI,
    4. et al

    . The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 2008; 8: 711– 16

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. McAfee PC

    . The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement. Spine J 2004; 4 ( 6 suppl): 177S– 81S

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Villavicencio AT,
    2. Burneikiene S,
    3. Pashman R,
    4. et al.

    , Spinal artificial disc replacement: cervical arthroplasty. Part II. Indications, surgical technique, complications. Contemporary Neurosurgery 2007; 29: 1– 6
26. 26.↵
    1. Meyer B

    . Spinal arthroplasty is here to stay: editorial. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 405– 07

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Sekhon L

    . Cervicothoracic junction arthroplasty after previous fusion surgery for adjacent segment degeneration: case report. Neurosurgery 2005; 56 ( 1 suppl): E205, discussion E205

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Sekhon LH,
    2. Sears W,
    3. Duggal N

    . Cervical arthroplasty after previous surgery: results of treating 24 discs in 15 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 335– 41

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Phillips FM,
    2. Allen TR,
    3. Regan JJ,
    4. et al

    . Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 556– 65

    CrossRef
30. 30.↵
    1. Mobbs RJ,
    2. Mehan N,
    3. Khong P

    . Cervical arthroplasty for myelopathy adjacent to previous multisegmental fusion. J Clin Neurosci 2009; 16: 150– 52

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Cunningham BW,
    2. Hu N,
    3. Zorn CM,
    4. et al

    . Comparative fixation methods of cervical disc arthroplasty versus conventional methods of anterior cervical arthrodesis: serration, teeth, keels, or screws? J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 12: 214– 20

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Fekete TF,
    2. Porchet F

    . Overview of disc arthroplasty: past, present and future. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 393– 404

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Villavicencio AT,
    2. Burneikiene S,
    3. Pashman R,
    4. et al

    . Spinal artificial disc replacement: cervical arthroplasty. Part I. History, design, and types of artificial discs. Contemporary Neurosurgery 2007; 29: 1– 6
34. 34.↵
    1. Stanton P,
    2. Eck J

    . Materials and design characteristics of cervical arthroplasty devices. Techniques in Orthopaedics 2010; 25: 93– 96

    CrossRef
35. 35.↵
    1. Mehren C,
    2. Suchomel P,
    3. Grochulla F,
    4. et al

    . Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 2802– 06

    CrossRef
36. 36.↵
    1. Sola S,
    2. Hebecker R,
    3. Knoop M,
    4. et al

    . Bryan cervical disc prosthesis: three years follow-up. Eur Spine J 2005; 14 ( suppl 1): 38
37. 37.↵
    1. Sekhon LH,
    2. Duggal N,
    3. Lynch JJ,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 673– 80

    CrossRef
38. 38.↵
    1. Antosh IJ,
    2. DeVine JG,
    3. Carpenter CT,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adjacent segments after cervical disc arthroplasty: magnet strength and its effect on image quality—clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2010: 722– 26
39. 39.↵
    1. Jazrawi LM,
    2. Kummer FJ,
    3. DiCesare PE

    . Alternative bearing surfaces for total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1998; 6: 198– 203

    Abstract
40. 40.↵
    1. van Ooij A,
    2. Kurtz SM,
    3. Stessels F,
    4. et al

    . Polyethylene wear debris and long-term clinical failure of the Charité disc prosthesis: a study of 4 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 223– 29

    CrossRef
41. 41.↵
    1. Pitzen T,
    2. Kettler A,
    3. Drumm J,
    4. et al

    . Cervical spine disc prosthesis: radiographic, biomechanical and morphological post mortal findings 12 weeks after implantation—a retrieval example. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 1015– 20

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Grupp TM,
    2. Meisel HJ,
    3. Cotton JA,
    4. et al

    . Alternative bearing materials for intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 523– 31

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    1. Hu N,
    2. Cunningham BW,
    3. McAfee PC,
    4. et al

    . Porous coated motion cervical disc replacement: a biomechanical, histomorphometric, and biologic wear analysis in a caprine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 1666– 73

    CrossRef
44. 44.↵
    1. Phillips FM,
    2. Garfin SR

    . Cervical disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30 ( 17 suppl): S27– 33

    PubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Galbusera F,
    2. Bellini CM,
    3. Brayda-Bruno M,
    4. et al

    . Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc arthroplasty: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008; 23: 1095– 104. Epub 2008 Jul 16

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Mummaneni PV,
    2. Burkus JK,
    3. Haid RW,
    4. et al

    . Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6: 198– 209

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
47. 47.↵
    1. Heller JG,
    2. Sasso RC,
    3. Papadopoulos SM,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 101– 07

    CrossRef
48. 48.↵
    1. Murrey D,
    2. Janssen M,
    3. Delamarter R,
    4. et al

    . Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 2009; 9: 275– 86

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
49. 49.↵
    1. Botelho RV,
    2. Moraes OJ,
    3. Fernandes GA,
    4. et al

    . A systematic review of randomized trials on the effect of cervical disc arthroplasty on reducing adjacent-level degeneration. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28: E5

    PubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Burkus JK,
    2. Haid RW,
    3. Traynelis VC,
    4. et al

    . Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 308– 18

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
51. 51.↵
    1. Bartels RH,
    2. Donk R,
    3. Verbeek AL

    . No justification for cervical disk prostheses in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurgery 2010; 66: 1153– 60, discussion 1160

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
52. 52.↵
    1. Sasso RC,
    2. Smucker JD,
    3. Hacker RJ,
    4. et al

    . Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007; 20: 481– 91

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Steinmetz MP,
    2. Patel R,
    3. Traynelis V,
    4. et al

    . Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers' compensation population. Neurosurgery 2008; 63: 741– 47; discussion 747

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Nabhan A,
    2. Ahlhelm F,
    3. Pitzen T,
    4. et al

    . Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 423– 30. Epub 2006 Nov 14

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
55. 55.↵
    1. Nabhan A,
    2. Steudel WI,
    3. Nabhan A,
    4. et al

    . Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2009; 17: 229– 36
56. 56.↵
    1. Hacker RJ

    . Cervical disc arthroplasty: a controlled randomized prospective study with intermediate follow-up results: invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves, March 2005. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 424– 28

    PubMed
57. 57.↵
    1. Nabhan A,
    2. Al-Yhary A,
    3. Ishak B,
    4. et al

    . Analysis of spinal kinematics following implantation of lumbar spine disc prostheses versus fusion: radiological study. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2007; 17: 207– 16

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    1. Anderson PA,
    2. Sasso RC,
    3. Riew KD

    . Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33: 1305– 12

    CrossRef
59. 59.↵
    1. Jawahar A,
    2. Cavanaugh DA,
    3. Kerr EJ 3rd.,
    4. et al

    . Total disc arthroplasty does not affect the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical spine: results of 93 patients in three prospective randomized clinical trials. Spine J 2010; 10: 1043– 48

    CrossRefPubMed
60. 60.↵
    1. van Tulder MW,
    2. Koes BW,
    3. Bouter LM

    . A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain 1995; 62: 233– 40, 1995

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
61. 61.↵
    1. Pengel LH,
    2. Herbert RD,
    3. Maher CG,
    4. et al

    . Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. BMJ 2003; 327: 323

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
62. 62.↵
    1. Frelinghuysen P,
    2. Huang RC,
    3. Girardi FP,
    4. et al

    . Lumbar total disc replacement. Part I. Rationale, biomechanics, and implant types. Orthop Clin North Am 2005; 36: 293– 99

    CrossRefPubMed
63. 63.↵
    1. Errico TJ

    . Why a mechanical disc? Spine J 2004; 4 ( 6 suppl): 151S– 57S

    CrossRefPubMed
64. 64.↵
    1. van den Eerenbeemt KD,
    2. Ostelo RW,
    3. van Royen BJ,
    4. et al

    . Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1262– 80

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
65. 65.↵
    1. Fritzell P,
    2. Hagg O,
    3. Wessberg P,
    4. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 2521– 32, discussion 2532–34

    CrossRef
66. 66.↵
    1. Resnick DK,
    2. Choudhri TF,
    3. Dailey AT,
    4. et al

    . Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7. Intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2: 670– 72

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
67. 67.↵
    1. Smith JS,
    2. Shaffrey CI,
    3. Sansur CA,
    4. et al

    . Rates of infection following spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36: 556– 63

    CrossRef
68. 68.↵
    1. de Kleuver M,
    2. Oner FC,
    3. Jacobs WC

    . Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: background and a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2003; 12: 108– 16

    PubMedWeb of Science
69. 69.↵
    1. Freeman BJ,
    2. Davenport J

    . Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2006; 15 ( suppl 3): S439– 47

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
70. 70.↵
    1. Deyo RA,
    2. Nachemson A,
    3. Mirza SK

    . Spinal-fusion surgery: the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 722– 26

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
71. 71.↵
    1. Cunningham BW,
    2. Dmitriev AE,
    3. Hu N,
    4. et al

    . General principles of total disc replacement arthroplasty: seventeen cases in a nonhuman primate model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: S118– 24

    CrossRef
72. 72.↵
    1. McAfee PC,
    2. Cunningham B,
    3. Holsapple G,
    4. et al

    . A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion. Part II. Evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1576– 83, discussion E1388–90
73. 73.↵
    1. Link HD

    . History, design and biomechanics of the Link SB Charité artificial disc. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 ( suppl 2): S98– 105

    PubMed
74. 74.↵
    1. Szpalski M,
    2. Gunzburg R,
    3. Mayer M

    . Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 ( suppl 2): S65– 84

    PubMed
75. 75.↵
    1. Fairbank J,
    2. Frost H,
    3. Wilson-MacDonald J,
    4. et al

    . Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 2005; 330: 1233

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
76. 76.↵
    1. Resnick DK,
    2. Watters WC

    . Lumbar disc arthroplasty: a critical review. Clin Neurosurg 2007; 54: 83– 87

    PubMed
77. 77.↵
    1. Weinhoffer SL,
    2. Guyer RD,
    3. Herbert M,
    4. et al

    . Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion: a cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20: 526– 31

    CrossRef
78. 78.↵
    1. Chow DH,
    2. Luk KD,
    3. Evans JH,
    4. et al

    . Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21: 549– 55

    CrossRef
79. 79.↵
    1. Kim YE,
    2. Goel VK,
    3. Weinstein JN,
    4. et al

    . Effect of disc degeneration at one level on the adjacent level in axial mode. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991; 16: 331– 35

    CrossRef
80. 80.↵
    1. Rao RD,
    2. David KS,
    3. Wang M

    . Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 2772– 76

    CrossRef
81. 81.↵
    1. Cochran T,
    2. Irstam L,
    3. Nachemson A

    . Long-term anatomic and functional changes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by Harrington rod fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983; 8: 576– 84

    CrossRef
82. 82.↵
    1. Etebar S,
    2. Cahill DW

    . Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg 1999; 90 ( 2 suppl): 163– 69

    PubMed
83. 83.↵
    1. Park P,
    2. Garton HJ,
    3. Gala VC,
    4. et al

    . Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 1938– 44

    CrossRef
84. 84.↵
    1. Rahm MD,
    2. Hall BB

    . Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 1996; 9: 392– 400

    PubMed
85. 85.↵
    1. Crawford NR

    . Biomechanics of lumbar arthroplasty. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2005; 16: 595– 602, v

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
86. 86.↵
    1. Frymoyer JW,
    2. Hanley E,
    3. Howe J,
    4. et al

    . Disc excision and spine fusion in the management of lumbar disc disease: a minimum ten-year followup. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1978; 3: 1– 6

    CrossRef
87. 87.↵
    1. Seitsalo S,
    2. Schlenzka D,
    3. Poussa M,
    4. et al

    . Disc degeneration in young patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated operatively or conservatively: a long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 1997; 6: 393– 97

    CrossRefPubMed
88. 88.↵
    1. Kumar MN,
    2. Jacquot F,
    3. 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– 13

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
89. 89.↵
    1. Bertagnoli R,
    2. 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– 36

    PubMedWeb of Science
90. 90.↵
    1. Blumenthal S,
    2. McAfee PC,
    3. Guyer RD,
    4. et al

    . 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) 2005; 30: 1565– 75, discussion E1387–91

    CrossRef
91. 91.↵
    1. Simmons JW

    . Inclusion Criteria for Disc Arthroplasty. Philadelphia: North American Spine Society, 2005
92. 92.↵
    1. Goel VK,
    2. Winterbottom JM,
    3. Weinstein JN,
    4. et al

    . Load sharing among equal spinal elements of a motion segment in extension and lateral bending. J Biomech Eng 1987; 109: 291– 97

    CrossRefPubMed
93. 93.↵
    1. Panjabi M,
    2. Yamamota I,
    3. Oxland T,
    4. et al

    . How does posture affect coupling in the lumbar spine? Spine 1989; 14: 1002– 11

    CrossRefPubMed
94. 94.↵
    1. Fraser RD,
    2. Ross ER,
    3. Lowery GL,
    4. et al

    . AcroFlex design and results. Spine J 2004; 4 ( 6 suppl): 245S– 51S

    CrossRefPubMed
95. 95.↵
    US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approval Charité. 2004; http://www.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf4/p040006a.pdf
96. 96.↵
    US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approval ProDisc. 2006; http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/p050010a.pdf
97. 97.↵
    1. Aryan HE,
    2. Acosta FL Jr.,
    3. Ames CP

    . The Charité artificial disc: insertion technique. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2005; 16: 637– 50, vii

    CrossRefPubMed
98. 98.↵
    1. Huang RC,
    2. Girardi FP,
    3. Cammisa FP Jr.,
    4. et al

    . The implications of constraint in lumbar total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16: 412– 17

    PubMedWeb of Science
99. 99.↵
    1. Diangelo D,
    2. Foley KT,
    3. Morrow B,
    4. et al

    . Biomechanical comparison of the Charité and ProDisc lumbar disc prostheses. In: Proceedings of the Global Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology, 5th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, New York. May 4–7, 2005
100. 100.↵
     1. Ahmed AM,
     2. Duncan NA,
     3. Burke DL

     . The effect of facet geometry on the axial torque-rotation response of lumbar motion segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15: 391– 401

     CrossRef
101. 101.↵
     1. Guyer RD,
     2. McAfee PC,
     3. Banco RJ,
     4. 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 May 2009; 9: 374– 86. Epub 2008 Sep 19

     CrossRef
102. 102.↵
     1. Geisler FH,
     2. Blumenthal SL,
     3. Guyer RD,
     4. et al

     . 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 2004; 1: 143– 54

     PubMedWeb of Science
103. 103.↵
     1. McAfee PC,
     2. Geisler FH,
     3. Saiedy SS,
     4. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 1217– 26

     CrossRef
104. 104.↵
     1. Zigler J,
     2. Delamarter R,
     3. Spivak JM,
     4. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 1155– 62, discussion 1163

     CrossRef
105. 105.↵
     1. Mirza SK

     . Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to Food and Drug Administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1561– 64

     CrossRef
106. 106.↵
     1. Zindrick MR,
     2. Lorenz MA,
     3. Bunch WH

     . Editorial Response to Parts 1 and 2 of the FDA IDELumbar Total Disc Replacement With the Charite^TM Artificial Disc Vs. Lumbar Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: E388– 90

     CrossRef
107. 107.↵
     1. Burkus JK,
     2. Transfeldt EE,
     3. Kitchel SH,
     4. et al

     . Clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 2396– 408

     CrossRef
108. 108.↵
     1. Sasso RC,
     2. Kitchel SH,
     3. Dawson EG

     . A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a titanium cylindrical threaded fusion device. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 113– 22, 2004, discussion 121–22

     CrossRef
109. 109.↵
     1. Ostelo RW,
     2. Deyo RA,
     3. Stratford P,
     4. et al

     . Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33: 90– 94

     CrossRef