Literature DB >> 10828927

Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.

J W Brantigan1, A D Steffee, M L Lewis, L M Quinn, J M Persenaire.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A carbon fiber-reinforced polymer cage implant filled with autologous bone was designed to separate the mechanical and biologic functions of posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
OBJECTIVES: To test the safety and efficacy of the carbon cage with pedicle screw fixation in a 2-year prospective study performed at six centers under a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and to present the data supporting the Food and Drug Administration approved indications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The success of posterior lumbar interbody fusion has been limited by mechanical and biologic deficiencies of the donor bone. Some failures of pedicle screw fixation may be attributable to the absence of adequate load sharing through the anterior column. Combining an interbody fusion device with pedicle screw fixation may address some limitations of posterior lumbar interbody fusion or pedicle screw fixation in cases that are more complex mechanically.
METHODS: This clinical study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation involved a prospective group of 221 patients.
RESULTS: Fusion success was achieved in 176 (98.9%) of 178 patients. In the management of degenerative disc disease in patients with prior failed discectomy surgery, clinical success was achieved in 79 (86%) of 92 patients, and radiographic bony arthrodesis in 91 (100%) of 91 patients. Disc space height, averaging 7.9 mm before surgery, was increased to 12.3 mm at surgery and maintained at 11.7 mm at 2 years. Fusion success was notdiminished over multiple fusion levels. These results were significantly better than those reported in prior literature. Although significant surgical complications occurred, those attributable to the implant devices occurred less frequently and generally were minor.
CONCLUSIONS: The Brantigan I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the Variable Screw Placement System are safe and effective for the management of degenerative disc disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10828927     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  67 in total

1.  The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anne Polikeit; Stephen J Ferguson; Lutz P Nolte; Tracy E Orr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Factors influencing stresses in the lumbar spine after the insertion of intervertebral cages: finite element analysis.

Authors:  Anne Polikeit; Stephen J Ferguson; Lutz P Nolte; Tracy E Orr
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results.

Authors:  Lars Hackenberg; Henry Halm; Viola Bullmann; Volker Vieth; Marc Schneider; Ulf Liljenqvist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation.

Authors:  Alexander Abbushi; Mario Cabraja; Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale; Christian Woiciechowsky; Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a prospective controlled study in the Han nationality.

Authors:  Lei Cheng; Lin Nie; Li Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-06-03       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Surgical outcomes of additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Toshitada Miwa; Hironobu Sakaura; Tomoya Yamashita; Shozo Suzuki; Tetsuo Ohwada
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study.

Authors:  F Cuzzocrea; A Ivone; E Jannelli; A Fioruzzi; E Ferranti; R Vanelli; F Benazzo
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2018-12-10

8.  Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Two-Year Study Evaluating Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes With Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Graham Mulvaney; Steve Monk; Jonathan D Clemente; Deborah Pfortmiller; Domagoj Coric
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

9.  Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation.

Authors:  Rajesh R Shah; Saeed Mohammed; Asif Saifuddin; Benjamin A Taylor
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-07       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Percutaneous posterior-lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease using a B-Twin expandable spinal spacer.

Authors:  Lizu Xiao; Donglin Xiong; Qiang Zhang; Jin Jian; Husan Zheng; Yuhui Luo; Juanli Dai; Deren Zhang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.