ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025
The Future of Arthroplasty in the Spine.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Review of Spinal Arthroplasty.Neurospine · 2026Review
- Readability of patient education materials for lumbar disc replacement.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of spinal arthroplasty, a significant journey that began in the 1960s and 1970s, has seen remarkable progress. Initially designed to preserve motion at spinal segments and avoid complications associated with fusion surgeries, early designs faced setbacks due to rudimentary concepts and limited materials. However, the 1980s marked a turning point with the development of modern total disc replacement concepts, utilizing advanced materials such as titanium and polyethylene to improve implant longevity and integration. The early 2000s saw crucial approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, leading to broader clinical adoption.By the 2010s, cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) had been refined through innovations such as patient-specific implants and the integration of robotics and surgical navigation. Cervical disc arthroplasty and lumbar disc arthroplasty are effective alternatives to fusion, particularly in preserving motion and reducing adjacent segment disease. Ongoing research continues to focus on viscoelastic arthroplasty and the integration of biologics to enhance outcomes, providing reassurance about the continuous improvement in spinal arthroplasty and instilling optimism about its future.Selecting patients for arthroplasty is a critical process that requires careful consideration. Ideal candidates display symptoms unresponsive to conservative treatments, have adequate disc height, and possess good bone quality. As arthroplasty typically preserves motion, it is less suited for patients with severe joint diseases or significant spinal stiffness. This emphasis on patient selection underscores the need for thorough evaluation and the importance of considering individual patient factors.Despite its benefits, the adoption of disc arthroplasty faces barriers such as high costs, stringent inclusion criteria, and the need for specialized surgical training. Overcoming these barriers requires advocacy, improved training, and potentially revising inclusion criteria to ensure more patients can benefit from these advanced treatments. The future of spinal arthroplasty looks promising, with potential advancements in biokinetics, biomaterials, and the broader application of minimally invasive techniques. This ongoing evolution promises to improve clinical outcomes and significantly enhance patient quality of life, offering hope for a better future in spinal arthroplasty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.