Letter to the Editor concerning “Charité total disc replacement: clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years” (M. Putzier et al.)

Büttner-Janz, Karin

doi:10.1007/s00586-006-1081-0

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Generation überarbeitet wurde und zum anderen einen Zeitraum beinhaltet, der aus heutiger Sicht bezüglich der geforderten präoperativen Bildgebung (MRT) und klinischen Diagnostik eindeutig als unzulänglich klassifiziert werden muss. Ferner wurde in der Studie nicht auf die in den frühen Jahren viel weiter gefasste Indikation, die Lernkurve der Operateure und die über die Jahre veränderten Implantationstechniken bedingt durch die Lernkurve eingegangen wie in anderen Veröffentlichungen, die sich mit den Ergebnissen von Putzier beschäftigen, nachvollziehbar eingewandt wird [9].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Lumbale Bandscheibenendoprothetik – Update 2008

Wiedenhöfer

Ewerbeck

Suda

et al. 2008

Chirurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar total disc replacement is an increasingly common way of treating degenerative lumbar disc disease while preserving mobility. The aim of this analysis was to survey evidence-based data to classify the procedure. Based on a MEDLINE inquiry, 38 clinical trials dealing with lumbar total disc replacement were selected and analyzed by the criteria of indication, preoperative procedure, and clinical follow-up. These data represent 3,180 patient-related evaluations with follow-up of 5.9 to 204 months. We also included ten retrospective studies. Patient satisfaction was a mean of 90.73%, and the Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale were significantly lower. High rates of revision surgery, explantation surgery, and secondary fusions are linked to wrong preoperative indication. According to evidence criteria, the results show that lumbar total disc replacement is a safe procedure with a high rate of success. There is clear evidence that both imprecise indication and the choice of too-small implants significantly reduce the prospect of surgical success and increase the rates of reintervention.

show abstract

Section: Introductionunclassified