Below is a list of ADR related publications I extracted from an insurance company policy on ADR. This particular company does not cover any ADR. Since the policy was labeled "proprietary", I am not going to mention the name of the company. I asked them for permission to share the policy with the SPS and they graciously declined. This subset of the policy can not be proprietary, since it is merely a list of public domain publications. I hope some of this information is of use to someone in their quest to be pain free (or obtain your PhD).

Phil

******************

1. Bertagnoli R, et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: A prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, February 2006; 4(2): 85-90.

2. Bertagnoli R, et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis in smokers versus nonsmokers: A prospective study with 2 year minimum follow-up. Spine, April 2006; 31(9): 992-997.

3. Bertagnoli R, et al. The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: A prospective study with 2 year minimum follow-up. Spine, October 2005; 30(19): 2192-2199.

4. Bertagnoli R, et al. Early results after ProDisc C cervical disc replacement. Journal Neurosurgery Spine, April 2005; 2(4): 403-410.

5. Bertagnoli R, et al. Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the prodisc prosthesis: A prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up. Journal Neurosurgery Spine, February 2006; 4(2): 91-97.

6. Bertagnoli R, et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty in patients older than 60 years of age: A prospective study of the ProDisc prosthesis with 2-year minimum follow-up period. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, February 2006; 4(2): 85-90.

7. Bertagnoli R, et al. Lumbar total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis in smokers versus nonsmokers: A prospective study with 2 year minimum follow-up. Spine, April 2006; 31(9): 992-997.

8. Bertagnoli R, et al. The treatment of disabling multilevel lumbar discogenic low back pain with total disc arthroplasty utilizing the ProDisc prosthesis: A prospective study with 2 year minimum follow-up. Spine, October 2005; 30(19): 2192-2199.

9. Bertagnoli R, et al. Early results after ProDisc C cervical disc replacement. Journal Neurosurgery Spine, April 2005; 2(4): 403-410.

10. Bertagnoli R, et al. Treatment of symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with total disc arthroplasty by using the prodisc prosthesis: A prospective study with 2-year minimum follow up. Journal Neurosurgery Spine, February 2006; 4(2): 91-97.

11. Blumenthal SL, et al. Artificial intervertebral discs and beyond: A North American Spine Society Annual Meeting Symposium. The Spine Journal, November 2002; 2(6): 460-3.

12. Blumenthal SL, et al. Prospective study evaluating total disc replacement: Preliminary results. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, October 2003; 16(5): 450-4.

13. Blumenthal S, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Part 1: Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine, July 2005; 30(14): 1565-1575.

14. Caspi I, et al. Results of lumbar disk prosthesis after a follow-up period of 48 months. Israel Medical Association Journal, January 2003; 5(1): 9-11.

15. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, et al. Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc arthroplasty: A case report and literature review. Spine, April 2009; 34(7): E262-265.

16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). NCD for Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement (LADR) (150.10). Medicare Coverage Database, August 14, 2007, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

17. Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L and Hou Y. Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: A prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop, October 2009; 33(5): 1347-1351.

18. Chou R, Baisden J, et al. Surgery for low back pain: A review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Spine, May 2009; 34(10): 1094-1109.

19. Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, et al. Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society. Spine, May 2009; 34(10): 1066-1077.

20. Chung, SS. Lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: A prospective study with a 2 year minimum follow-up. Journal of Spinal Disorders Technology, August 2006; 19(6): 411-415.

21. Coric D, Finger F and Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan cervical disc: Early clinical results from a single investigational site. Journal of Neurosurgical Spine, January 2006; 4(1): 31-35.

22. David T. Revision of a Charité artificial disc 9.5 years in vivo to a new Charité artificial disc: Case report and explant analysis. European Spine Journal, June 2005; 14(5): 507-511.

23. David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: Minimum 10-year follow-up of the Charité artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine, March 2007; 32(6): 661-666.

24. deKleuver M, et al. Total disc replacement for chronic low back pain: Background and a systematic review of the literature. European Spine Journal, April 2003; 12(2): 108-16.

25. Delamarter RB, et al. ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: Introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine, October 2003; 28(20): S167-75.

26. Delamarter RB, et al. Clinical results of the ProDisc II lumbar total disc replacement: Report from the United States clinical trial. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, July 2005; 36(3): 301-313.

27. Eijkelkamp MF, et al. Improving the fixation of an artificial intervertebral disc. International Journal of Artificial Organs, April 2002; 25(4): 327-33.

28. Eijkelkamp MF, et al. Requirements for an artificial intervertebral disc. International Journal of Artificial Organs, May 2001; 24(5): 311-21.

29. Freeman BJ, et al. Total disc replacement in the lumbar spine: A systematic review of the literature. European Spine Journal, August 2006; 15 Suppl 3: S439-447.

30. Garrido BJ, Taha TA and Sasso RC. Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc arthroplasty a prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech, August 2010; 23(6): 367-371.

31. Geisler FH, et al. Neurological complications of lumbar artificial disc replacement and comparison of clinical results with those related to lumbar arthrodesis in the literature: Results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study of Charité intervertebral disc. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and peripheral Nerves, March 2004. Journal of Neurosurgical Spine, September 2004; 1(2): 143-154.

32. Goffin J, van Loon J, et al. A clinical analysis of 4- and 6-year follow-up results after cervical disc replacement surgery using the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis. J Neurosurg Spine, March 2010; 12(3): 261-269.

33. Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F, van Loon J, et al. Intermediate follow-up after treatment of degenerative disc disease with the Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Single-level and bi-level. Spine, December 2003; 28(24): 2673-2678.

34. Guyer RD, et al. Prospective randomized study of the Charite artificial disc: Data from two investigational centers. Spine Journal, Nov-Dec 2004; 4(6 Suppl): 252S-259S.

35. 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 CHARITÉ artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Five-year follow-up. Spine Journal, May 2009; 9(5): 374-386.

36. The Hayes AIS Medical Technology Advisor. Artificial cervical discs. November 2007, Vol. 1, No. 2.

37. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spin, January 2009; 34(2): 101-107.

38. Hochschuler SH, et al. Artificial disc: Preliminary results of a prospective study in the United States. European Spine Journal, October 2002; 11 Suppl 2: S106-10.

39. Huang RC, et al. Correlation between range of motion and outcome after lumbar total disc replacement: 8.6 year follow up. Spine, June 2005; 30(12): 1407-1411.

40. Jacobs WC, Anderson PG, et al. Single or double-level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical degenerative disc disease. Cochrane Database System Review, October 2004 (4): CD004958.

41. Kim WJ, et al. Treatment of juxtafusional degeneration with artificial disc replacement (ADR): Preliminary results of an ongoing prospective study. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, August 2003; 16(4): 390-7.

42. Kotani Y, et al. Artificial intervertebral disc replacement using bioactive three-dimensional fabric: Design, development, and preliminary animal study. Spine, May 2002; 27(9): 929-35.

43. Lemaire JP, et al. Intervertebral disc prosthesis. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, April 1997, No. 337, pp. 64-76.

44. Lemaire JP, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charité artificial disc: A 10 year-minimum follow-up. Journal of Spinal Disorders Technology, August 2005; 18(4): 353-359.

45. Leviseth G, et al. Mobility of lumbar segments instrumented with a ProDisc II prosthesis: A two year follow up study. Spine, July 2006; 31(15): 1726-1733.

46. Matthew P, et al. Bilateral pedicle fractures following anterior dislocation of the polyethylene inlay of a ProDisc artificial disc replacement: A case report of an unusual complication. Spine, June 2005; 30(11): E311-314.

47. Mayer HM, et al. Minimally invasive total disc replacement: Surgical technique and preliminary clinical results. European Spine Journal, October 2002, 11 Suppl 2: S124-130.

48. McAfee PC, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the Charité artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: Part II: Evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine, July 2005; 30(14): 1576-1583.

49. McAfee PC, et al. Experimental design of total disk replacement-Experience with a prospective randomized study of the SB Charité. Spine, October 2003; 28(20): S153-62.

50. McAfee PC, et al. SB Charite disc replacement: Report of 60 prospective randomized cases in a U.S. center. Spine, January 2003; 28 Suppl: 424-33.

51. McAfee PC, Geisler FH, Saiedy SS, Moore SV, et al. Revisability of the CHARITE artificial disc replacement: Analysis of 688 patients enrolled in the U.S. IDE study of the CHARITE artificial disc. Spine, May 2006; 31(11): 1217-1226.

52. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

53. Murrey DM, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multi-center Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Article in press, 2008.

54. Nabhan A, et al. Disc replacement using ProDisc C versus fusion: A prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. European Spine Journal, March 2007; 16(3): 423-430.

55. Papadopoulos S. The Bryan cervical disc system. Neurosurgical Clinics of North America, October 2005; 16(4): 629-636.

56. Park CK, Ryu KS and Jee WH. Degenerative changes of discs and facet joints in lumbar total disc replacement using ProDisc II: Minimum two-year follow-up. Spine, July 2008; 33(16): 1755-1761.

57. Punt IM, et al. Complications and reoperations of the SB Charite lumbar disc prosthesis: Experience in 75 patients. European Spine Journal, October 2007.

58. Punt HM, Visser VM, et al. Complications and reoperations of the SB Charité lumbar disc prosthesis: Experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 36-43.

59. Putzier M, et al. Charité total disc replacement-clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. European Spine Journal, February 2006; 15(2): 183-195.

60. Riew KD, Buchowski JM, Sasso R, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Am J Bone Joint Surg, November 2008; 90(11): 2354-2364.

61. Robertson JT, Papadopoulos SM and Traynelis VC. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: A prospective 2 year study. Journal of Neurosurgical Spine, December 2005; 3(6): 417-423.

62. Sasso RC, Roulk DM and Hahn M. Prospective, randomized trial of metal-on-metal artificial lumbar disc replacement: Initial results for treatment of discogenic pain. Spine, January 2008; 33(2): 123-131.

63. Schroven I, et al. Intervertebral prosthesis versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: One year results of a prospective nonrandomized study. Acta Orthopedics Belgium, January 2006; 72(1): 83-86.

64. Shim CS, et al. Vertical split fracture of the vertebral body following total disc replacement using ProDisc: Report of two cases. Journal of Spinal Disorders Technology, October 2005; 18(5): 465-469.

65. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, et al. CHARITÉ versus ProDisc: A comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine, April 2007; 32(9): 1012-1018.

66. Siepe CJ, et al. Clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement with ProDisc II: Three year results for different indications. Spine, August 2006; 31(17): 1923-1932.

67. Siepe CJ, et al. Total lumbar disc replacement: Different results for different levels. Spine, April 2007; 32(7): 782-790.

68. Siepe CJ, Korge A, Grochulla F, et al. Analysis of post-operative pain patters following total lumbar disc replacement: Results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations. Eur Spine J 2008: 17: 44-56.

69. Stieber JR. Early failure of lumbar disc replacement: Case report and review of the literature. Journal of Spinal Disorders Technology, February 2006; 19(1): 55-60.

70. Thierry D. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty. Spine 2007, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 661-666.

71. Traynelis VC. The Prestige cervical disc. Neurosurgical Clinics of North America, October 2005; 16(4): 621-628.

72. Tropiano P, et al. Lumbar total disc replacement. Seven to eleven year follow up. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery, March 2005; 87(3): 490-496.

73. Tropiano P, et al. Lumbar disc replacement: Preliminary results with ProDisc II after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Spine, January 2003; 28 Suppl: 362-8.

74. Tropiana P, et al. Lumbar total disc replacement. Surgical technique. Journal Bone Joint Surgery, March 2006; 88(Suppl 1, PH): 50-64.

75. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 2005 Summary of safety and effectiveness. Charité artificial disc. U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page.

76. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 2006 Summary of safety and effectiveness. ProDisc L total disc replacement. U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page.

77. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2006. Report of United States Clinical Study Results (G010188)—Prestige Cervical Disc System. Available online at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/...-4243b1_02.pdf.

78. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health 2009. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness. Bryan Cervical Disc. U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page.

79. Van Ooij A, et al. Polyethylene wear debris and long-term clinical failure of the Charité disc prosthesis: A study of 4 patients. Spine, January 2007; 32(2): 223-229.

80. Van Ooij A, Oner FC, Verbout AJ. Complications of artificial dis replacement: A report of 27 patients with the SB Charité disc. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16(4): 369-383.

81. Vernon H and Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: A study of reliability and validity. September 1991; 14(7): 409-415.

82. Zigler JE, et al. Lumbar spine arthroplasty: Early results using the ProDisc II: A prospective randomized trial of arthroplasty versus fusion. Spine, January 2003; 28 Suppl: 352-61.

83. Zigler J, 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, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 1155-1162.
1.