Clinical Outcome of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Using ProDisc-L in Degenerative Disc Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective clinical data analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the therapeutic effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) using ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) in the patients with degenerative disc diseases (DDD) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early successful clinical results of lumbar TDR have been reported. However, few reports have published its therapeutic effectiveness in the long term. METHODS: The patients were examined preoperatively and at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and more than 5 years postoperatively, and assessed using visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), physical health component summary (PCS) of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire, and sporting activity scale scores. At last follow-up visits, two additional questions were asked: satisfaction with surgery and willingness to undergo the same treatment. Finally, clinical success was assessed using the Food and Drug Administration definition. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included in the study. The mean follow-up period was 72 months (6 years). Postoperatively, all outcome measure scores (VAS, mean ODI, PCS, and sports activity scores) immediately improved and these improvements were maintained at last follow-up visits with statistical significance. However, outcome score improvements were observed to be slightly, though significantly, lower at last follow-up visits than at 1 or 2 years postoperatively. Eighty-eight percent of patients were "satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with treatment and 60% were prepared to undergo the same treatment again. Twenty-five patients (71.4%) achieved clinical success. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that lumbar TDR using ProDisc-L is a safe and effective treatment for chronic back pain caused by lumbar DDD as assessed at more than 5 years postoperatively. Nevertheless, outcome scores were slightly, though significantly lower at last follow-up visits than at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. A longer-term follow-up study is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".