There is a way to relieve your leg and back pain*—and it isn't fusion.

The latest innovation in artificial disc technology has arrived. Find out more about total disc replacement, how it works, and why it could be the alternative to spinal fusion you've been searching for.

Learn More

If any of these sound like you,
you’re in the right place.

  • “My doctor recommends fusion surgery, but I’ve heard stories that concern me.”
  • “Pain controls my life! I want to be healthy and active again.”
  • “Aren’t there more advanced solutions available?”

Advancing Medical Technology Leads To A Spinal Fusion Alternative

First Fusions Performed
Early 1900s
First Fusions Performed
For decades, people suffering from leg and back pain have sought surgical intervention. In the early days, surgeons used steel bars, wires, and even coral to fuse spinal segments.
Fusion Technology Advances
1990s
Fusion Technology Advances
In the 1990s, fusion surgery became less risky and more mainstream with the advent of pedicle screws, spacers, and more sophisticated bone grafting materials. New tools and approaches made smaller surgical incisions possible, minimizing scarring and healing time.
Artificial Disc Replacement Makes A Breakthrough
2000s
Artificial Disc Replacement Makes A Breakthrough
The 2000s saw the arrival of exciting new artificial disc technology. The medical community predicted that disc replacement would displace fusion, just as it had for hips and knees.
Slow Technology Growth Stalls Innovation
2010s
Slow Technology Growth Stalls Innovation
Despite the scientific developments that gave us surgical robots, lasers, and space-age surgical navigation, treatment for back and leg pain did not progress. Fusion became faster and safer, but the theory behind restoring spinal function remained the same, with fusion being the most recommended solution even though studies have shown that patients are 2-5 times more likely to require additional surgery after fusion compared to disc replacement.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
An Innovative Total Joint Replacement Solution
Today
An Innovative Total Joint Replacement Solution
The BalancedBack™ Total Joint Replacement is the latest development in addressing leg and back pain in the lumbar spine. It essentially replaces the functions of both the damaged disc, which carries your body, as well as the facets, which control motion. The procedure works on the same theory as total joint replacement in the hips and knees.

BalancedBack™ has two important differences from traditional disc replacement surgery:

  1. Our surgeons use a posterior approach (through the back), which is safer than first-generation anterior (through the belly) disc replacement surgeries and also allows the surgeon to treat your leg pain (pinched nerves).6
  2. The procedure allows the spine to find its natural curvature and balance, relieving the muscle strains and spasms that are common after fusion surgery.7

Comparing Your Options For Back Surgery



Traditional Fusion
Surgery
Anterior Disc
Replacement Surgery
BalancedBack
Total Joint Replacement
Relieves Low Back Pain7 No Yes Yes
Relieves Leg Pain From Pinched Nerves9, 10 Yes No Yes
Can Be Performed Minimally Invasively10 Yes No Yes
Restores Spinal Balance7, 8, 11 No Yes Yes
Preserves Range Of Motion & Protects Adjacent Segments1, 2, 3, 4, 5 No Yes Yes

Want To Learn More?


Total-Joint-Replacement-Brochure-BalancedBack

 

Analysis-of-Back-Surgery-Options

 

Spine.ky-Learn-More

 

Citations


1) Zigler et al. (2012). Five-year adjacent level degenerative changes in patients with single-level disease treated using lumbar total disc replacement with ProDisc- L versus circumferential fusion. Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, 17:504-511.

2) Gornet et al. (2015). Cervical disc arthroplasty with prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: seven-year outcomes. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 10:24.

3) Janssen et al. (2015). ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level symptomatic cervical disc disease: seven-year follow-up of the prospective randomized U.S. Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Am, 97(21):1738-47.

4) Marueda et al. (2016). Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes though 15 year followup. European Spine Journal, 25(5):1550-1557.

5) Hisey et al. (2016). Prospective, randomized comparison of one-level Mobi-C Cervical Total Disc Replacement vs. anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: results at 5-year follow-up. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 10:10.

6) Qureshi et al. (2017). A comparison of anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusions- complications, readmissions, discharge dispositions and costs. Spine, 5/25 ePub ahead of print.

7) Bae et al. (2016). Impact of fatigue on maintenance of upright posture: dynamic assessment of sagittal spinal deformity parameters after walking 10 minutes. Spine (e-pub).

8) Le Huec et al. (2015). Evidence showing the relationship between sagittal balance and clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of degenerative spinal diseases: a literature review. International Orthopaedics, 39:87-95

9) Büttner-Janz et al. (2014). Indications for lumbar total disc replacement: selecting the right patient with the right indication for the right total disc. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 1:8.

10) Salzmann et al. (2017). Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 10(2):153-159.

11) Patwardhan et al. (2017). Variations of lumbopelvic alignment in standing, seated and slumped postures in a cohort of asymptomatic adults: implications for lumbar fusion surgery. International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Podium Presentation #338, Boca Raton, FL.