Talk:Total disc replacement

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Total disc replacement.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Rename this article

Most people search for "Artificial Disc Replacement" not "Intervertebral disc arthroplasty" so I suggest the article be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterjag (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect from Artificial disc replacement directly to this article. The primary name is per WP policy. Riverpa (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intervertebral disc arthroplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303154901/http://www.thestreet.com/_mstar/stocks/melissadavid/10223280.html?cm_ven=MSTAR&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA to http://www.thestreet.com/_mstar/stocks/melissadavid/10223280.html?cm_ven=MSTAR&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory & History

I think the regulatory and history sections could benefit from additional information. A better timeline: when the procedure was introduced in Europe, Japan, and the US (major markets where the procedure has undergone significant development). Under regulatory, we need a better timeline for significant studies and approvals in Europe and US (e.g., FDA: 2000-2018). Accessible studies are published and citable. We can add (without editorial) that recent clinical data that demonstrates significantly better patient outcomes than fusion control patients (citable). Insurance companies are changing policy and covering the procedure for patients well into their 60s (citable). Article surprisingly only mentions limitation by CMS for one aspect of the procedure (special conditions apply; if we mention the limitation then we should also add the special conditions). If we're going to mention insurance coverage, should we also add carriers that have been successfully challenged in court (citable). Article mentions lumbar, what about cervical? What about thoracic?

Looking for guidance and support. Thanks! Wikieditor 3833 13:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]