Clinical Results of Maverick Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Two-Year Prospective Follow-up

Huec, J C Le; Mathews, Hallett H.; Basso, Y.; Aunoble, S.; Hoste, David; Bley, B.; Friesem, Tai

doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.02.001

Cited by 112 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies were on highly selected cases and without equal randomisation to compare the effect of TDR with fusion. Many studies dealing with TDR [4,10,15,23,26,27] include patients with only one symptomatic level causing pain and dysfunction due to DDD, being discographypositive and without spondylosis or facet joint arthritis, the patients sampled thus representing a subgroup of all patients with painful motion segments. Based on these studies, TDR cannot be recommended for a wide group of patients with degenerative problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study design includes a prospective, randomised controlled study comparing total disc replacement (TDR) with posterior fusion. The main objective of this study is to compare TDR with lumbar spinal fusion, in terms of clinical outcome, in patients referred to a spine clinic for surgical evaluation. Fusion is effective for treating chronic low back pain (LBP), but has drawbacks, such as stiffness and possibly adjacent level degradation. Motion-preserving options have emerged, of which TDR is frequently used because of these drawbacks. How the results of TDR compare to fusion, however, is uncertain. One hundred and fifty-two patients with a mean age of 40 years (21-55) were included: 90 were women, and 80 underwent TDR. The patients had not responded to a conservative treatment programme and suffered from predominantly LBP, with varying degrees of leg pain. Diagnosis was based on clinical examination, radiographs, MRI, and in unclear cases, diagnostic injections. Outcome measures were global assessment

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from retrospective or prospective cohort studies on TDR with different devices have been presented [2,3,7,15,23,26]; however, the long-term mechanical characteristics of the various prostheses have not been entirely studied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spinal fusion for DDD is the most common accepted treatment in effort to eliminate abnormal motion and instability at the symptomatic degenerated levels, and thereby reduce or eliminate low-back pain [1,4,7,17]. Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative to spinal arthrodesis, is increasingly applied for surgically treating lumbar DDD [30,32,42]. By performing lumbar TDR, it is postulated that the patient's normal intervertebral segment motion is restored and maintained while the adjacent level is prevented from non-physiologic loading and thus the pain is relieved [43].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Zhu

Han

et al. 2010

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have sightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year followup. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More highquality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

show abstract

“…The CHARITÉ i and Mavericki underwent biomechanical testing under controlled conditions [15,16] and, along with the ProDisc \ -L, have shown clinical success in restoring disc height and normal motion [17][18][19][20][21]. While biomechanical testing was performed by Rousseau et al [22] to determine the effect of TDR on instant axis of rotation (IAR) and facet joint forces, no testing has been performed on the ProDisc \ -L to determine its dynamic behavior in restoring joint motion [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of an Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis in Human Cadaveric Spines

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-back pain is a common, disabling medical condition, and one of the major causes is disc degeneration. Total disc replacements are intended to treat back pain by restoring disc height and re-establishing functional motion and stability at the index level. The objective of this study was to determine the effect on range of motion (ROM) and stiffness after implantation of the ProDisc \ -L device in comparison to the intact state. Twelve L5-S1 lumbar spine segments were tested in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with axial compressive loads of 600 N and 1,200 N. Specimens were tested in the intact state and after implantation with the ProDisc \ -L device. ROM was not significantly different in the implanted spines when compared to their intact state in flexion/extension and axial rotation but increased in lateral bending. Increased compressive load did not affect ROM in flexion/extension or axial rotation but did result in decreased ROM in lateral bending and increased stiffness in both intact and implanted spine segments. The ProDisc \ -L successfully restored or maintained normal spine segment motion.

show abstract

Clinical Results of Maverick Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Two-Year Prospective Follow-up

Cited by 112 publications

References 31 publications

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Dynamics of an Intervertebral Disc Prosthesis in Human Cadaveric Spines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About