D W Kucharzyk1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Anthony's Medical Center, Crown Point, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A series of 65 instrumented patients without stimulation were compared with a later series of 65 patients with instrumentation and implantable electrical stimulation. The groups were evaluated for risk factors, age, diagnostic groups, levels fused, and radiographic and clinical success. OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy of electrical stimulation in instrumented high-risk lumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal instrumentation and implantable electrical stimulation have been shown to improve fusion success rates. METHODS: All patients were instrumented via pedicle screws and autologous bone graft. Diagnostic groups were evaluated, and the risk factors in each group were identified and compared. Postoperation management and follow-up regimen were similar in each group. Radiographs were evaluated via Dawson's criteria and confirmed by an independent radiologist. Clinical success was evaluated via the Modified Smiley-Webster Scale and confirmed by a second orthopedic surgeon. RESULTS: Fusion success was 95.6% in the stimulated group compared with 87% in the nonstimulated group (P = 0.05). Clinical success was 91% in the stimulated group and 79% in the nonstimulated group (P = 0.02). In a workers' compensation subset, fusion success was 93% in the stimulated group and 81% in the nonstimulated group. Clinical success was 57% in the stimulated group and 46% in the nonstimulated group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from using both instrumentation and electrical stimulation in a high-risk pool of patients show a statistically significant difference, with higher rates of fusion and clinical success than in a similar pool that did not receive stimulation.
STUDY DESIGN: A series of 65 instrumented patients without stimulation were compared with a later series of 65 patients with instrumentation and implantable electrical stimulation. The groups were evaluated for risk factors, age, diagnostic groups, levels fused, and radiographic and clinical success. OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy of electrical stimulation in instrumented high-risk lumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal instrumentation and implantable electrical stimulation have been shown to improve fusion success rates. METHODS: All patients were instrumented via pedicle screws and autologous bone graft. Diagnostic groups were evaluated, and the risk factors in each group were identified and compared. Postoperation management and follow-up regimen were similar in each group. Radiographs were evaluated via Dawson's criteria and confirmed by an independent radiologist. Clinical success was evaluated via the Modified Smiley-Webster Scale and confirmed by a second orthopedic surgeon. RESULTS: Fusion success was 95.6% in the stimulated group compared with 87% in the nonstimulated group (P = 0.05). Clinical success was 91% in the stimulated group and 79% in the nonstimulated group (P = 0.02). In a workers' compensation subset, fusion success was 93% in the stimulated group and 81% in the nonstimulated group. Clinical success was 57% in the stimulated group and 46% in the nonstimulated group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from using both instrumentation and electrical stimulation in a high-risk pool of patients show a statistically significant difference, with higher rates of fusion and clinical success than in a similar pool that did not receive stimulation.
Authors: Mit Balvantray Bhavsar; Zhihua Han; Thomas DeCoster; Liudmila Leppik; Karla Mychellyne Costa Oliveira; John H Barker Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Syed I Khalid; Ravi S Nunna; Rachyl M Shanker; Kyle B Thomson; Rown Parola; Owoicho Adogwa; Ankit I Mehta Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2022-06-14
Authors: Anthony D'Oro; Zorica Buser; Darrel Scott Brodke; Jong-Beom Park; Sangwook Tim Yoon; Jim Aimen Youssef; Hans-Joerg Meisel; Kristen Emmanuel Radcliff; Patrick Hsieh; Jeffrey Chun Wang Journal: Asian Spine J Date: 2018-10-16