Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview of disc arthroplasty—past, present and future

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Degenerative disc disease is one of the most frequent spinal disorders. The anatomy and the biomechanics of the intervertebral disc are very complex, and the pathomechanics of its degeneration are poorly understood. Despite this complexity and uncertainty, great advances have been made in the field of disc replacement technology, with promising results. Difficulties are continuously being encountered, but careful analysis of the results and intensive research and development will assist in countering these problems. There are approximately 40 clinical reports in the literature describing various aspects of randomised controlled trials involving intervertebral disc arthroplasty. However, the majority of these publications do not provide reliable information, in that they give only interim results and/or the results from just one of the many centres in multicentre studies. Such publications must be interpreted with caution, since they do not always represent the results of the whole study population and may hence be underpowered. We identified six randomised controlled trials that compared the final clinical outcomes of disc arthroplasty and spinal fusion. The present systematic review attempts to give an overview of the current status of disc arthroplasty.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, Mannion AF, Reis S, Staal JB, Ursin H, Zanoli G (2006) Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 2):S192–S300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson PA, Sasso RC, Riew KD (2008) Comparison of adverse events between the Bryan artificial cervical disc and anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine 33:1305–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey RW, Badgley CE (1960) Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 42-A:565–594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Nanieva R, Fenk-Mayer A, Husted DS, Shah RV, Emerson JW (2006) Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: a prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 4:85–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, Garcia R Jr, Regan JJ, Ohnmeiss DD (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 30:1565–1575 discussion E1387–E1591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boehler J (1961) Surgical fixation of the cervical spine from the anterior approach. Langenbecks Arch Klin Chir Ver Dtsch Z Chir 298:1004–1005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Dickman CA, Zdeblick TA (2002) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 with tapered interbody cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:337–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Büttner-Janz K (1992) The development of the artificial disc: SB Charité. Huntley, Dallas

    Google Scholar 

  9. Button G, Gupta M, Barrett C, Cammack P, Benson D (2005) Three- to six-year follow-up of stand-alone BAK cages implanted by a single surgeon. Spine J 5:155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F (1996) Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 21:995–1000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cloward RB (1959) Vertebral body fusion for ruptured cervical discs. Am J Surg 98:722–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Coric D, Finger F, Boltes P (2006) Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 4:31–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB (2005) Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 36:301–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LE, Bae H (2003) ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine 28:S167–S175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbank J (2007) Re: Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak J, 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 32:1155–1162 2929–2930; author reply 2930–2921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernstrom U (1966) Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 357:154–159

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2001) 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 26:2521–2532 discussion 2532–2524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Johnson JP, Mullin B (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 Charite 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 

  19. Geisler FH, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Bitan F, Regan JJ (2008) Effect of previous surgery on clinical outcome following 1-level lumbar arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine 8:108–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Geisler FH, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Bitan F, Regan JJ (2008) Patient selection for lumbar arthroplasty and arthrodesis: the effect of revision surgery in a controlled, multicenter, randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine 8:13–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1497–1503

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine 30:2312–2320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, Casey A, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Sgrambiglia R, Pointillart V (2003) Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: single-level and bi-level. Spine 28:2673–2678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Griffith SL, Shelokov AP, Buttner-Janz K, LeMaire JP, Zeegers WS (1994) A multicenter retrospective study of the clinical results of the LINK SB Charite intervertebral prosthesis. The initial European experience. Spine 19:1842–1849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guyer RD, Geisler FH, Blumenthal SL, McAfee PC, Mullin BB (2008) Effect of age on clinical and radiographic outcomes and adverse events following 1-level lumbar arthroplasty after a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 8:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH, Holt RT, Jenis LG, Majd ME, Regan JJ, Tromanhauser SG, Wong DC, Blumenthal SL (2009) 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 9:374–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Hochschuler SH, Blumenthal SL, Fedder IL, Ohnmeiss DD, Cunningham BW (2004) Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: data from two investigational centers. Spine J 4:252S–259S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hacker RJ (2005) 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 3:424–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS (2008) Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701–1707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, Anderson PA, Fessler RG, Hacker RJ, Coric D, Cauthen JC, Riew DK (2009) Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine 34:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH (1999) Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:519–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hilibrand AS, Robbins M (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J 4:190S–194S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Lim MR, Tropiano P, Marnay T (2005) Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine 30:1407–1411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, Tropiano P, Marnay T (2003) Long-term flexion-extension range of motion of the ProDisc total disc replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:435–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, Girardi FP, Lim MR, Cammisa FP Jr (2006) Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 6:242–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ, Urban RM, Wimmer MA (2006) Wear particles. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 2):99–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Klara PM, Ray CD (2002) Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 27:1374–1377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lafuente J, Casey AT, Petzold A, Brew S (2005) The Bryan cervical disc prosthesis as an alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of cervical spondylosis: 46 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:508–512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Le Huec JC, Mathews H, Basso Y, Aunoble S, Hoste D, Bley B, Friesem T (2005) Clinical results of Maverick lumbar total disc replacement: two-year prospective follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36:315–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali El H, Skalli W, Lavaste F (2005) Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Leung C, Casey AT, Goffin J, Kehr P, Liebig K, Lind B, Logroscino C, Pointillart V (2005) Clinical significance of heterotopic ossification in cervical disc replacement: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Neurosurgery 57:759–763 discussion 759–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, Shucosky EM, Cunningham BW (2003) Experimental design of total disk replacement—experience with a prospective randomized study of the SB Charite. Spine 28:S153–S162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McAfee PC, Fedder IL, Saiedy S, Shucosky EM, Cunningham BW (2003) SB Charite disc replacement: report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a US center. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:424–433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS, Moore SV, Regan JJ, Guyer RD, Blumenthal SL, Fedder IL, Tortolani PJ, Cunningham B (2006) Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE Artificial Disc. Spine 31:1217–1226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, Barsa P, Sourkova P, Hradil J, Korge A, Mayer HM (2006) Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement. Spine 31:2802–2806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mirza SK (2005) Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to food and drug administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine 30:1561–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Zdeblick TA (2007) Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 6:198–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, Darden B (2009) 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 9:275–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Pitzen T, Steudel WI, Jung J, Shariat K, Steimer O, Bachelier F, Pape D (2007) Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 16:423–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Shariat K, Pitzen T, Steimer O, Steudel WI, Pape D (2007) The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine 32:1935–1941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nabhan A, Steudel WI, Nabhan A, Pape D, Ishak B (2007) Segmental kinematics and adjacent level degeneration following disc replacement versus fusion: RCT with three years of follow-up. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 17:229–236

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nachemson A (1962) Some mechanical properties of the lumbar intervertebral discs. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 23:130–143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pellise F, Hernandez A, Vidal X, Minguell J, Martinez C, Villanueva C (2007) Radiologic assessment of all unfused lumbar segments 7.5 years after instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Spine 32:574–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, Albert TJ, Cappuccino A, Devine JG, Ahrens JE, Hipp JA, McAfee PC (2009) Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previous adjacent level fusion surgery: a prospective study. Spine 34:556–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, Cunningham BW, Diaz R, Coutinho E (2007) Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine 32:1337–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Porchet F, Metcalf NH (2004) Clinical outcomes with the Prestige II cervical disc: preliminary results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Neurosurg Focus 17:E6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Regan JJ, McAfee PC, Blumenthal SL, Guyer RD, Geisler FH, Garcia R Jr, Maxwell JH (2006) Evaluation of surgical volume and the early experience with lumbar total disc replacement as part of the investigational device exemption study of the Charite Artificial Disc. Spine 31:2270–2276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC 3rd, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2:692–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R, Zdeblick T, Metcalf NH, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2354–2364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Riina J, Patel A, Dietz JW, Hoskins JS, Trammell TR, Schwartz DD (2008) Comparison of single-level cervical fusion and a metal-on-metal cervical disc replacement device. Am J Orthop 37:E71–E77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Robinson RA (1963) 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 33:1–14

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Röder C, Blozik E, Müller U, Moulin P, Aebi M (2009) SWISSspine: an outcome and quality registry of orthopaedic implants as a condition for reimbursement by basic health insurance. J Manage Market Healthcare Volume 2:94–101

    Google Scholar 

  63. Sasso RC, Best NM, Metcalf NH, Anderson PA (2008) Motion analysis of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior discectomy and fusion: results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter, clinical trial. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:393–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sasso RC, Foulk DM, Hahn M (2008) Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine 33:123–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine 32:2933–2940 discussion 2941–2932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sasso RC, Smucker JD, Hacker RJ, Heller JG (2007) Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:481–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Roder C (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Lynch JJ, Haid RW, Heller JG, Riew KD, Seex K, Anderson PA (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices. Spine 32:673–680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, Kang HS, Choi WC, Jung B, Choi G, Ahn Y, Lee S, Lee HY (2007) CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 32:1012–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A (2007) Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 32:782–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A (2006) Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 31:1923–1932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40-A:607–624

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Soegaard R, Bunger CE, Christiansen T, Hoy K, Eiskjaer SP, Christensen FB (2007) Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain. Spine 32:2405–2414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Steinmetz MP, Patel R, Traynelis V, Resnick DK, Anderson PA (2008) Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with fusion in a workers' compensation population. Neurosurgery 63:741–747 discussion 747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Mayer M (2002) Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S65–S84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Eng M, McAfee PC, Holsapple GA, Adams KA (2007) Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:82–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ (2003) Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charite disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:369–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ (1999) Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charite III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 8:210–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO 3rd, Haider TT, Cammisa F, Zuchermann J, Balderston R, Kitchel S, Foley K, Watkins R, Bradford D, Yue J, Yuan H, Herkowitz H, Geiger D, Bendo J, Peppers T, Sachs B, Girardi F, Kropf M, Goldstein J (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 32:1155–1162 discussion 1163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Zigler JE (2003) Clinical results with ProDisc: European experience and U.S. investigation device exemption study. Spine 28:S163–S166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Zigler JE (2004) Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J 4:260S–267S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN, Sachs BL, Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD (2003) Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:352–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Anne F. Mannion for her critical reviewing and language editing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulthess Clinic, Spine Centre, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    Tamás Fülöp Fekete & François Porchet

Authors
  1. Tamás Fülöp Fekete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Porchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamás Fülöp Fekete.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fekete, T.F., Porchet, F. Overview of disc arthroplasty—past, present and future. Acta Neurochir 152, 393–404 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-009-0529-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation