Literature DB >> 12461393

Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients.

Finn B Christensen1, Ebbe S Hansen, Søren P Eiskjaer, Kristian Høy, Peter Helmig, Pavel Neumann, Bent Niedermann, Cody E Bünger.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective randomized clinical study with a 2-year follow-up period was conducted.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of circumferential fusion using ALIF radiolucent carbon fiber cages and titanium posterior instrumentation on functional outcome, fusion rate, complications, and lumbar lordosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Circumferential fusion has become a common procedure in lumbar spine fusion, both as a primary and salvage procedure. However, the claimed advantages of ALIF plus PLF over conventional PLF lack scientific documentation.
METHODS: From April 1996 through November 1999, a total of 148 patients with severe chronic low back pain were randomly selected for either posterolateral lumbar fusion with titanium CD-Horizon (posterolateral group) or circumferential fusion with a ALIF Brantigan cage plus posterior instrumentation. The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPR), and a questionnaire concerning work status assessed their outcomes.
RESULTS: Both groups showed highly significant improvement in all four categories of life quality (DPQ) as well as in the back pain and leg pain index (LBPR), as compared with preoperative status. There was a clear tendency toward better overall functional outcome for patients with the circumferential procedure ( < 0.08), and this patient group also showed significantly less leg pain at the 1-year follow-up evaluation ( < 0.03) and less peak back pain at 2 years ( < 0.04). Sagittal lordosis was restored and maintained in the circumferential group ( < 0.01). The circumferential fusion patients showed a higher posterolateral fusion rate (92%) than the posterolateral group (80%)( < 0.04). The repeat operation rate including implant removal was significantly lower in the circumferential group (7%) ( < 0.009) than in the posterolateral group (22%).
CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential lumbar fusion restored lordosis, provided a higher union rate with significantly fewer repeat operations, showed a tendency toward better functional outcome, and resulted in less peak back pain and leg pain than instrumented posterolateral fusion. The clinical perspective of the current study implies a recommendation to favor circumferential fusion as a definitive surgical procedure in complex lumbar pathology involving major instability, flatback, and previous disc surgery in younger patients, as compared with posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12461393     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200212010-00006

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


  51 in total

1.  Instrumented circumferential fusion for tuberculosis of the dorso-lumbar spine. A single or double stage procedure?

Authors:  Mohammad Mostafa El-Sharkawi; Galal Zaki Said
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Fusion as treatment for chronic low back pain--existing evidence, the scientific frontier and research strategies.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Fusion for low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Wilco C H Jacobs; Arnold Vreeling; Marinus De Kleuver
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  [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 5.  Health economic evaluation in lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic literature review anno 2005.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Post-discectomy syndrome treated with lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Thomas Niemeyer; Henry Halm; Lars Hackenberg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Albert Schulze Bövingloh
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Results after anterior-posterior lumbar spinal fusion: 2-5 years follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas Niemeyer; Albert Schulze Bövingloh; Henry Halm; Ulf Liljenqvist
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2004-07-27       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Posterolateral versus circumferential instrumented fusion for monosegmental lumbar degenerative disc disease using an expandable cage.

Authors:  Panagiotis Korovessis; Thomas Repantis; Andreas Baikousis; Panagiotis Iliopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2011-10-21

9.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kristian Høy; Cody Bünger; Bent Niederman; Peter Helmig; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Haisheng Li; Thomas Andersen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up.

Authors:  José I Maruenda; Carlos Barrios; Felipe Garibo; Borja Maruenda
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.