Table 2 The characteristics of the patients including the selected analysis
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 |