Skip to main content

Table 2 The characteristics of the patients including the selected analysis

From: Mid- to long-term results of total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review

Study Year Type of study Type of prosthesis Number of patients (T/F) FU rate (%) Mean age (min, max) Mean FU years Evidence level
Guyer et al. [17] 2012 Prospective Charité 90/90 100 40.0 (19–60) 5 (N/A) I
Zigler and Delamarter[50] 2012 Prospective ProDisc 126/161 78 38.7 (N/A) 85.1% (N/A) I
Van De Kelft and Verguts [43] 2012 Prospective Maverick 45/50 90 37.1 (N/A) 4 (N/A) II
Meir et al. [27] 2013 Prospective AcroFlex 23/28 82.10 41 (30–54) 9.6 (8.7–11.3) II
Sköld et al. [41] 2013 Prospective Charité, ProDisc, Maverick 80/80 100 40.2 (21/55) 5 (N/A) I
Siepe et al. [39] 2014 Prospective ProDisc 181/201 90 43.0 (21.9–66.1) 7.4 (5.0–10.8) II
Tohmeh and Smith. [42] 2015 Prospective XL TDR 64/64 100 45.3 (26–67) 3.0 (N/A) II
Laugesen et al. [20] 2017 Prospective ProDisc 57/68 84 49.6 (34.5–79.0) 10.6 (8.1–12.6) II
Putzier et al. [34] 2006 Retrospective Charité 53/71 74.60 44 (30–59) 17.3 (14.5–19.2) III
David [7] 2007 Retrospective Charité 106/108 98 36.4 (23–50) 13.2 (10.0–16.8) III
Park et al. [29] 2012 Retrospective ProDisc 35/35 100 46.5 (27–70) 6.0 (5.0–7.8) III
Lu et al. [23] 2015 Retrospective Charité 32/35 91.40 41.1 (28.6–51.3) 11.8 (11.3/13.8) III
Park et al. [31] 2016 Retrospective ProDisc 54/64 84.40 44.1 (29–59) 10.0 (5.1–12) III
  1. NO number, T total, F follow, FU follow-up, min minimum, max maximum, N/A not available