Literature DB >> 11716014

Outcomes of allogenic cages in anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

M E Janssen1, C Lam, R Beckham.   

Abstract

Interbody lumbar fusions provide a proven logical solution to diseases of the intervertebral discs by eliminating motion of the segment. Historically, there are many techniques to achieve spinal fusion in the lumbar spine. These include anterior, posterior, and foramenal approaches, often in combination with various internal fixation devices. The surgeon's choice of the approach and mechanical or biological implant is dependent on the patient's specific pathology and anatomy, in addition to the experience and training of the surgeon in similar conditions. In the past decade, new mechanical spine implants/spacers have been designed to provide restoration of disc height and improve stabilization of the spine. The ability to radiographically assess the "biology" of bone incorporation in these mechanical (metal) spacers has become a significant limitation. The femoral ring allograft (FRA) and the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) spacers have been developed as "biological cages" that permit restoration of the anterior column with machined allograft bone biological cages. Test results demonstrate that the FRA and PLIF spacers have a compressive strength of over 25,000 N. The pyramid-shaped teeth on the surfaces and the geometry of the implant increase the resistance to expulsion at clinically relevant loads (1053 and 1236 N). The technique of anterior column reconstruction with both the FRA and the PLIF biological cages have been previously reported. Clinical outcomes and experience with the FRA spacer (137 patients) and the PLIF spacer (13 patients) were reported on and did not reveal any evidence of bone cage resorption or infectious inflammatory process. There was clinical migration with one PLIF spacer, which was later revised with an anterior approach and a FRA spacer. The radiographic outcomes demonstrated that 94% arthrodesis was achieved with the biological spacer and additional posterior instrumentation. The clinical success of every spine fusion procedure is dependent on many factors such as the extent of the instability, the pathology, type of graft used, the patient's pathology/anatomy and lifestyle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11716014      PMCID: PMC3611548          DOI: 10.1007/s005860100292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  11 in total

Review 1.  [Vertebral body replacement in spine surgery].

Authors:  F Kandziora; K J Schnake; C K Klostermann; N P Haas
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the correction of spondylolisthesis and adult degenerative scoliosis in high-risk patients: early radiographic results and complications.

Authors:  Brad Waddell; David Briski; Rabah Qadir; Gustavo Godoy; Allison Howard Houston; Ernest Rudman; Joseph Zavatsky
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

Review 3.  [Interbody metal implants ("cages") for lumbar fusion].

Authors:  G Freiherr von Salis-Soglio; R Scholz; K Seller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 4.  Current status of bone graft options for anterior interbody fusion of the cervical and lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anthony Minh Tien Chau; Lileane Liang Xu; Johnny Ho-Yin Wong; Ralph Jasper Mobbs
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 5.  A Narrative Review of Lumbar Fusion Surgery With Relevance to Chiropractic Practice.

Authors:  Clinton J Daniels; Pamela J Wakefield; Glenn A Bub; James D Toombs
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-10-18

6.  Comparing the process of creeping substitution between allograft bone and local bone grafting in lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Hui Huang; Chun Jiang; ZhenZhou Feng; Xiaoxing Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A prospective, randomised controlled trial of femoral ring allograft versus a titanium cage in circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with minimum 2-year clinical results.

Authors:  Patrick J McKenna; Brian J C Freeman; Robert C Mulholland; Michael P Grevitt; John K Webb; S H Mehdian
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Harvesting local cylinder autograft from adjacent vertebral body for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique, operative feasibility and preliminary clinical results.

Authors:  Vincent Arlet; Liang Jiang; Thomas Steffen; Jean Ouellet; Rudy Reindl; Max Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-04-06       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2.

Authors:  Hans Jörg Meisel; Mark Schnöring; Christian Hohaus; Yvonne Minkus; Andre Beier; Timothy Ganey; Ulrich Mansmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Combined anterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumented posterolateral fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: indication and surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Ming-Kai Hsieh; Lih-Huei Chen; Chi-Chien Niu; Tsai-Sheng Fu; Po-Liang Lai; Wen-Jer Chen
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.