Download PDF
Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie up2date 2012; 7(2): 99-125
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1298378
Wirbelsäule
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Bandscheibenendoprothetik und andere bewegungserhaltende Stabilisierungsverfahren der Lendenwirbelsäule – klinische Aspekte

Teil 2
W. Käfer
1   Abteilung für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, Westpfalz-Klinikum GmbH
,
H.-J. Wilke
2   Institut für Unfallchirurgische Forschung und Biomechanik, Universität Ulm
,
B. Cakir
3   Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Ulm am RKU
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 March 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Die vorliegende Arbeit stellt dorsale und ventrale bewegungserhaltende Stabilisierungsverfahren der Lendenwirbelsäule dar. In ersten Teil wird ein Überblick über die zugrunde liegenden Krankheitsbilder der lumbalen Degeneration und damit einhergehend die Indikationsstellung und Patientenselektion gelegt.

Im zweiten Teil werden die Rationale sowie klinische und radiologische Ergebnisse lumbaler Bandscheibenprothesen, pedikelbasierter dorsaler dynamischer Stabilisierungssystemen, interspinöser Platzhalter und des Facettengelenk- sowie Nukleusersatz dargestellt.

 

  • Quellenangaben

  • Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 2007; 32: 685-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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 CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 2005; 30: 1565-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R et al. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 2009; 34: 1287-1291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cakir B, Schmidt R, Mattes T et al. Index level mobility after total lumbar disc replacement. Is it beneficial or detrimental?. Spine 2009; 34: 917-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG. Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine 2005; 30 (16 Suppl) 73-78
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Delamarter R, Zigler JE, Balderston RA 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1966; 357: 154-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Grob D, Benini A, Junge A et al. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine 2005; 30: 324-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ 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: 374-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 2008; 33: 1701-1707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Huang RC, Girardi FP, Cammisa Jr FP et al. Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6-year follow-up. Spine 2005; 30: 1407-1411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Käfer W, Clessienne CB, Däxle M et al. Posterior component impingement after lumbar total disc replacement: a radiographic analysis of 66 ProDisc-L prostheses in 56 patients. Spine 2008; 33: 2444-2449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan HF. Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 1982; 165: 110-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lemaire JP, Carrier H et al. Sariali el-H et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18: 353-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 (Suppl. 02) 198-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nockels RP. Dynamic stabilization in the surgical management of painful lumbar spinal disorders. Spine 2005; 30 (16 Suppl.) 68-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW et al. Complications and reoperations of the SB Charite lumbar disc prosthesis – experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 36-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV et al. Charite total disc replacement – clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 183-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16: 418-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 2007; 32: 1012-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Siddiqui M, Karadimas E, Nicol M et al. Influence of X Stop on neural foramina and spinal canal area in spinal stenosis. Spine 2006; 31: 2958-2962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Siepe CJ, Zelenkov P, Sauri-Barraza JC et al. The fate of facet joint and adjacent level disc degeneration following total lumbar disc replacement – A prospective clinical, x-ray, and MRI investigation. Spine 2010; 35: 1991-2003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 (Suppl. 02) 170-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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: 490-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, van Royen BJ et al. Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1262-1280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Wilkins & Williams; 1990:
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 2005; 30: 1351-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar