Contact the Association for Medical Ethics with any questions, or to find out more about our organization.
Click here to become a Member
of the Association for Medical Ethics

OVERALL AME Star Rating System for LUMBAR DISC REPLACEMENTS

LUMBAR DISC REPLACEMENT RATINGS by TYPE:

1. CHARITE type: 13 Studies

  • Three are 1 star (23% of total)
  • One is 3 star (8% of total)
  • Nine are 2 star (70% of total)

OVERALL AME RATING: 2 Star ** Poor predictive value for success of procedure

>25% of studies are 2 Star**

2. PRODISC type: 13 Studies

  • - One 5 star ( 8% of total)
  • - Two 3 star (15% of total )
  • - Ten 2 star (77% of total)

OVERALL AME RATING: : 2 Star ** Poor predictive value for success of procedure

>25% of studies are 2 Star**

3. MAVERICK : 1 Study
                            One 2 star
OVERALL AME RATING: 1 STAR * Poor predictive value for success of procedure
All studies are 2 Star **

REFERENCES:
Spine:Volume 33(11)15 May 2008pp 1262-1269
An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach in Determining Factors That May Affect Outcome in Lumbar Total Disc Replacement
[Literature Review]
Zindrick, Michael R. MD*; Tzermiadianos, Michael N. MD; Voronov, Leonard I. MD; Lorenz, Mark MD*; Hadjipavlou, Alexander MD

  1. Straus S, Richardson W, Glasziou P, Haynes B. Evidence Based Medicine. 3rd ed. London; Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, 2005.
    [Context Link]
  2. Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson W, et al. Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
    [Context Link]
  3. Dawes M, Summerskill W, Glasziou P, et al. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med Educ 2005;5:1.
    [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  4. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Ali el-HS, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charit trade mark artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18:353-9.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  5. Huang RC, Lim MR, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr. The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine 2004;29:2538-41.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  6. Wong DA, 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.
    [Context Link]
  7. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the Journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:1-3.
    [Context Link]
  8. Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Eng M, et al. Prevalence of heterotopic ossification following total disc replacement. A prospective, randomized study of two hundred and seventy-six patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:82.
    [Context Link]
  9. Trouillier H, Kern P, Refior HJ, Muller-Gerbl M. A prospective morphological study of facet joint integrity following intervertebral disc replacement with the CHARIT Artificial Disc. Eur Spine J 2006;15:174-82.
    [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  10. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARIT artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1576-83.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  11. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, et al. Charit versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 2007;32:1012-8.
    [Context Link]
  12. David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARIT artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine 2007;32:661-6.
    [Context Link]
  13. Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV, Gross C, et al. Charit total disc replacement-clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 2006;15:183-95.
    [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  14. Regan JJ. Clinical results of Charit lumbar total disc replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:323-40.
    [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  15. van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artificial disc replacement: a report of 27 patients with the SB Charit disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:369-83.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [Context Link]
  16. Sott AH, Harrison DJ. Increasing age does not affect good outcome after lumbar disc replacement. Int Orthop 2000;24:50-3.
    [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  17. Zeegers WS, Bohnen LM, Laaper M, Verhaegen MJ. Artificial disc replacement with the modular type SB Charit III: 2-year results in 50 prospectively studied patients. Eur Spine J 1999;8:210-7. [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  18. Lemaire JP, Skalli W, Lavaste F, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Results and prospects for the year 2000. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;337:64-76.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  19. Cinotti G, David T, Postacchini F. Results of disc prosthesis after a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Spine 1996;21:995-1000.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  20. Patel VV, Andrews C, Pradhan BB, et al. Computed tomography assessment of the accuracy of in vivo placement of artificial discs in the lumbar spine including radiographic and clinical consequences. Spine 2006;31:948-53.
    [Context Link]
  21. Huang RC, Tropiano P, Marnay T, et al. Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 2006;6:242-7.
    [Context Link]
  22. Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine 2005;30:1407-11.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  23. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Heinz-Leisenheimer M, Korge A. Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels. Spine 2007;32:782-90.
    [Context Link]
  24. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A. Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: three-year results for different indications. Spine 2006;31:1923-32.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  25. Chung SS, Lee CS, Kang CS. Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: a prospective study with a 2-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:411-5.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  26. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Nanieva R, et al. 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 2006;4:85-90.
    [Context Link]
  27. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, et al. The treatment of disabling single-level lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the Prodisc prosthesis: a prospective study with 2-year minimum follow-up. Spine 2005;30:2230-6.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  28. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Shah RV, 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 2005;30:2192-9.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  29. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al. Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:490-6.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  30. Tropiano P, Huang RC, Girardi FP, Marnay T. Lumbar disc replacement: preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:362-8. [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [Context Link]
  31. Bertagnoli R, 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):S131-6.
    [Medline Link]
  32. Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A, Qose I. Minimally invasive total disc replacement: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. Eur Spine J 2002;11(Suppl 2):S124-30.
    [Medline Link] [Context Link]
  33. Le Huec JC, Basso Y, Aunoble S, et al. Influence of facet and posterior muscle degeneration on clinical results of lumbar total disc replacement: two-year follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18:219-23.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [Context Link]
  34. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARIT artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1565-75.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]
  35. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, 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 2007;32:1155-63.
    [Context Link]
  36. Mirza SK. Point of view: commentary on the research reports that led to food and drug administration approval of an artificial disc. Spine 2005;30:1561-4.
    [Fulltext Link] [Medline Link] [CrossRef] [Context Link]

HOME | DOCTOR SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY | STAR RATING SYSTEM | HISTORY | MISSION | FOUNDER | ETHICAL RULES OF DISCLOSURE | CONTACT US
© 2009 Association For Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.