Lumbar Total Disc Replacement

Current Usage


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Purchase one-time access
      Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.
      Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.
      Subscribe to Neurosurgery Clinics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators
        Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
        Lancet. 2018; 392: 1789-1858
        • Andersson G.B.
        Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain.
        Lancet. 1999; 354: 581-585
        • Manchikanti L.
        • Singh V.
        • Falco F.J.
        • et al.
        Epidemiology of low back pain in adults.
        Neuromodulation. 2014; 17: 3-10
        • Battié M.C.
        • Joshi A.B.
        • Gibbons L.E.
        Degenerative disc disease: what is in a name?.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019; 44: 1523-1529
        • Othman Y.A.
        • Verma R.
        • Qureshi S.A.
        Artificial disc replacement in spine surgery.
        Ann Transl Med. 2019; 7: S170
        • Bai D-y
        • Liang L.
        • Zhang B.-B.
        Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98: e16460
        • Johnstone B.
        • Bayliss M.T.
        The large proteoglycans of the human intervertebral disc. Changes in their biosynthesis and structure with age, topography, and pathology.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20: 674-684
        • Fernström U.
        Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc.
        Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966; 357: 154-159
        • Kos N.
        • Gradisnik L.
        • Velnar T.
        A brief review of the degenerative intervertebral disc disease.
        Med Arch. 2019; 73: 421-424
        • Yajun W.
        • Yue Z.
        • Xiuxin H.
        • et al.
        A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease.
        Eur Spine J. 2010; 19: 1250-1261
        • McAfee P.C.
        The indications for lumbar and cervical disc replacement.
        Spine J. 2004; 4: S177-S181
        • Gornet M.
        • Buttermann G.
        • Guyer R.
        • et al.
        Defining the ideal lumbar total disc replacement patient and standard of care.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42: S103-S107
        • Gornet M.
        • Burkus J.
        • Dryer R.
        • et al.
        Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: five-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick disc IDE study.
        Spine Arthroplasty Society, New Orleans (LA)2010
        • Guyer R.D.
        • McAfee P.C.
        • Banco R.J.
        • 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. 2009; 9: 374-386
        • Sköld C.
        • Tropp H.
        • Berg S.
        Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial.
        Eur Spine J. 2013; 22: 2288-2295
        • Chung S.S.
        • Lee C.S.
        • Kang C.S.
        Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: a prospective study with a 2-year minimum follow-up.
        Clin Spine Surg. 2006; 19: 411-415
        • Park S.-J.
        • Lee C.-S.
        • Chung S.-S.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes following lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc-II: average 10-year follow-up at a single institute.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41: 971-977
      1. NASS. NASS coverage policy recommendations: lumbar artificial disc replacement. 2019. Available at:

      2. NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prosthetic intervertebral disc replacement in the lumbar spine. Interventional procedures guidance.2019. Available at:

        • Medical Advisory Secretariat
        Artificial discs for lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease–update: an evidence-based analysis.
        Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2006; 6: 1
      3. Aesculap. Reimbursement of lumbar TDR devices, Europe. 2018. Available at:

        • MSAC M.
        Review of interim funded service: artificial intervertebral disc replacement lumbar.
        2011: 170 (Report I ed: MSAC Available at:$File/1090.1-Assessment-Report.pdf.)
        • Zigler J.
        • Garcia R.
        ISASS policy statement–lumbar artificial disc.
        Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 9
        • Salzmann S.N.
        • Plais N.
        • Shue J.
        • et al.
        Lumbar disc replacement surgery—successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.
        Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017; 10: 153-159
        • Choi J.
        • Shin D.-A.
        • Kim S.
        Biomechanical effects of the geometry of ball-and-socket artificial disc on lumbar spine: a finite element study.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42: E332-E339
        • Sandhu F.A.
        • Dowlati E.
        • Garica R.
        Lumbar arthroplasty: past, present, and future.
        Neurosurgery. 2020; 86: 155-169
        • Veruva S.Y.
        • Lanman T.H.
        • Isaza J.E.
        • et al.
        Periprosthetic UHMWPE wear debris induces inflammation, vascularization, and innervation after total disc replacement in the lumbar spine.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475: 1369-1381
        • Veruva S.Y.
        • Steinbeck M.J.
        • Toth J.
        • et al.
        Which design and biomaterial factors affect clinical wear performance of total disc replacements? A systematic review.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472: 3759-3769
        • St John K.R.
        The use of compliant layer prosthetic components in orthopedic joint repair and replacement: a review.
        J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014; 102: 1332-1341
        • Putzier M.
        • Funk J.F.
        • Schneider S.V.
        • et al.
        Charité total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years.
        Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 183-195
        • Link H.D.
        History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Arthroplasty of the spine. Springer, 2004: 36-43
        • Palepu V.
        • Kodigudla M.
        • Goel V.K.
        Biomechanics of disc degeneration.
        Adv Orthop. 2012; 2012: 726210
        • Beatty S.
        We need to talk about lumbar total disc replacement.
        Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12: 201-240
        • Assaker R.
        • Ritter-Lang K.
        • Vardon D.
        • et al.
        Maverick total disc replacement in a real-world patient population: a prospective, multicentre, observational study.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 26: 1417
        • Sun W.
        • Wang P.
        • Hu H.
        • et al.
        Retrospective study on effectiveness of Activ L total disc replacement.
        J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16: 1-7
        • Schätz C.
        • Ritter-Lang K.
        • Gössel L.
        • et al.
        Comparison of single-level and multiple-level outcomes of total disc arthroplasty: 24-month results.
        Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 9: 14
        • Rainey S.
        • Blumenthal S.L.
        • Zigler J.E.
        • et al.
        Analysis of adjacent segment reoperation after lumbar total disc replacement.
        Int J Spine Surg. 2012; 6: 140-144
        • Zigler J.E.
        • Sachs B.L.
        • Rashbaum R.F.
        • et al.
        Two- to 3-year follow-up of ProDisc-L: results from a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion.
        SAS J. 2007; 1: 63-67
        • Zigler J.E.
        • Blumenthal S.L.
        • Guyer R.D.
        • et al.
        Progression of adjacent-level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement: results of a post-hoc analysis of patients with available radiographs from a prospective study with 5-year follow-up.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43: 1395-1400
        • Tropiano P.
        • Huang R.C.
        • Girardi F.P.
        • et al.
        Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 490-496
        • Yoshihara H.
        • Yoneoka D.
        National trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease: United States, 2000 to 2009.
        Spine J. 2015; 15: 265-271
        • Awe O.O.
        • Maltenfort M.G.
        • Prasad S.
        • et al.
        Impact of total disc arthroplasty on the surgical management of lumbar degenerative disc disease: analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample from 2000 to 2008.
        Surg Neurol Int. 2011; 2: 139
        • Saifi C.
        • Cazzulino A.
        • Park C.
        • et al.
        National trends for primary and revision lumbar disc arthroplasty throughout the United States.
        Glob Spine J. 2018; 8: 172-177
        • Zigler J.E.
        • Delamarter R.B.
        Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17: 493-501
        • Wong D.A.
        • Annesser B.
        • Birney T.
        • et al.
        Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis.
        Spine J. 2007; 7: 5-11
        • Kirkaldy-Willis W.H.
        • Wedge J.H.
        • Yong-Hing K.
        • et al.
        Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978; 3: 319-328
        • Mayer H.M.
        • Wiechert K.
        • Korge A.
        • et al.
        Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results.
        Eur Spine J. 2002; 11: S124-S130
        • Bertagnoli R.
        • Yue J.J.
        • Shah R.V.
        • et al.
        The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30: 2192-2199
        • Büttner-Janz K.
        • Guyer R.D.
        • Ohnmeiss D.D.
        Indications for lumbar total disc replacement: selecting the right patient with the right indication for the right total disc.
        Int J Spine Surg. 2014; 8: 12
        • Holt R.T.
        • Majd M.E.
        • Isaza J.E.
        • et al.
        Complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement compared to fusion: results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the Charité artificial disc.
        SAS J. 2007; 1: 20-27
        • van Ooij A.
        • Oner F.C.
        • Verbout A.J.
        Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16: 369-383
        • Kurtz S.M.
        • Lau E.
        • Ianuzzi A.
        • et al.
        National revision burden for lumbar total disc replacement in the United States: epidemiologic and economic perspectives.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35: 690-696
        • McAfee P.C.
        • Geisler F.H.
        • Saiedy S.S.
        • 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: 1217-1226
        • Zigler J.E.
        • Glenn J.
        • Delamarter R.B.
        Five-year adjacent-level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc-L versus circumferential fusion.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17: 504-511
        • Cunningham B.W.
        • Hu N.
        • Beatson H.J.
        • et al.
        Revision strategies for single- and two-level total disc arthroplasty procedures: a biomechanical perspective.
        Spine J. 2009; 9: 735-743
        • Stubig T.
        • Ahmed M.
        • Ghasemi A.
        • et al.
        Total disc replacement versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion in the lumbar spine and lumbosacral junction: a cost analysis.
        Glob Spine J. 2018; 8: 129-136
        • Siepe C.J.
        • Heider F.
        • Wiechert K.
        • et al.
        Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up.
        Spine J. 2014; 14: 1417-1431
        • Levin D.A.
        • Bendo J.A.
        • Quirno M.
        • et al.
        Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32: 2905-2909
        • Delamarter R.
        • Zigler J.E.
        • Balderston R.A.
        • et al.
        Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: results at twenty-four months.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 705-715
        • Dmitriev A.E.
        • Gill N.W.
        • Kuklo T.R.
        • et al.
        Effect of multilevel lumbar disc arthroplasty on the operative- and adjacent-level kinematics and intradiscal pressures: an in vitro human cadaveric assessment.
        Spine J. 2008; 8: 918-925
        • Rasouli A.
        • Cuellar J.M.
        • Kanim L.
        • et al.
        Multiple-level lumbar total disk replacement: a prospective clinical and radiographic analysis of motion preservation at 24-72 months.
        Clin Spine Surg. 2019; 32: 38-42