Spinal fusion is accepted worldwide as a therapeutic option for the treatment of degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Because there are only few evidence-based data available supporting the usefulness of lumbar spinal fusion, its questionable benefit as well as the potential for complications are the reasons for an ongoing discussion. In recent years, total disc replacement with implants has emerged as an alternative treatment. Although early results are promising, there is still a lack of evidence-based data as well as of long-term results for this technology. This article gives a critical update on the implant systems currently in use (SB Charité, Prodisc II L, Maverick, Flexicore, Mobidisc), which all have to be considered as "first-generation" implants. Morphological and clinical sequelae of the different biomechanical properties, designs, and materials have not yet been sufficiently investigated. There is no international consensus on the indication spectrum and on the preoperative diagnosis of discogenic low back pain. The same is true for the (minimally invasive) surgical access strategies. Complication rates seem to be somewhat lower compared to spinal fusion techniques. There are no standardized revision concepts in cases of implant failure. Lumbar disc replacement has opened a new era in spinal surgery with a still unproven benefit for the patient. It is strongly recommended that these techniques should only be applied by experienced and well-trained spine surgeons. Until evidence-based data are available, all patients should be treated under scientific study conditions with close postoperative follow-up.