ProDisc-L

The initial ProDisc lumbar artificial disc was developed by Thierry Marnay 1) in 1989, and was used clinically in the early 1990s. Subsequently, the second generation, ProDisc II was developed in 1999 with cobalt chrome endplates and constrained polyethylene core and approved for commercial use in Europe the same year. Two years after the publication of the Charité IDE trial in the United States, in 2007, the results of the ProDisc IDE trial comparing LDR to a circumferential fusion as control were published. 2) Short-term studies disclosed early findings from single sites involved in the trial. 3) 4) 5) 6) 7).

The completed trial at 2-yr follow-up included 161 arthroplasty and 75 fusion patients. 8) Complication rate was noted to be at 9% at 8.7 yr follow-up, and there was a reoperation rate of 3.7%.27 Overall success in the IDE trial was defined as a 15-point improvement in ODI score, no revision, improvement in Short Form 36 score, absence of neurological events, and radiographic success (no migration, subsidence, radiolucency, or loss of disk height, and maintenance of range of motion [ROM]). Trial data reported improvements in the LDR group in VAS for pain by an average of 39 points and improvement by 28 points in ODI. It is worth noting, however, that the ODI tool used in this trial was not the validated ODI 9). Additionally, there was a clear difference in the success rate between the sponsor criteria and the FDA criteria.


1)
Marnay T. ProDisc. The 7–11 Year Clinical Experience. New York, NY: Spine Solutions, Inc; 2000
2)
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(11):1155-1162; discussion 1163.
3) , 8)
Zigler JE, Burd TA, Vialle EN, Sachs BL, Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD. Lumbar spine arthroplasty: early results using the ProDisc II: a prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(4):352- 361.
4)
Zigler JE. Lumbar spine arthroplasty using the ProDisc II. Spine J. 2004;4(6):S260-S267.
5)
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(6):411-415.
6)
Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LEA, Bae H. ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine. 2003;28(Supplement):S167-S175.
7)
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(4):362-368.
9)
Fairbank J. Use and abuse of Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2007;32(25):2787- 2789.
  • prodisc-l.txt
  • Last modified: 2024/06/07 02:48
  • by 127.0.0.1