Literature DB >> 12768137

Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages.

Edward R G Santos1, David G Goss, Russel K Morcom, Robert D Fraser.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A comparative study investigated the use of plain static radiographs, flexion-extension radiographs, and thin-section helical computed tomography (CT) scanning in the assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages.
OBJECTIVE: To compare plain static radiographs, flexion-extension radiographs, and thin-section helical computed tomography scans in the assessment of lumbar interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar interbody fusion has become a popular procedure for the treatment of discogenic back pain. However, there currently is no universally accepted radiologic assessment tool for determining fusion, and the definitive criteria for diagnosing a successful interbody fusion in the lumbar spine remains controversial.
METHODS: Plain static radiographs, flexion-extension radiographs, and helical computed tomography scans were performed on 32 patients (49 levels) 5 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages and autologous bone. A radiologist assessed fusion using the Hutter method to detect movement, whereas a spinal surgeon measured movement in degrees using the Simmons method. Helical computed tomography scans were assessed for the presence of bridging trabecular bone.
RESULTS: The fusion rate was 86% on plain radiographs and 84% with the Hutter method. The fusion rate was 74% with the 2 degrees cutoff, and 96% with the 5 degrees cutoff prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration. Fusion on helical computed tomography scans was observed in 65% of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In the radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages, the use of plain radiographs and flexion-extension radiographs produced much higher fusion rates than assessment with thin-section helical computed tomography scans. The thin-section helical computed tomography studies clearly demonstrated the radiographic presence or absence of bridging bone, a property that was not seen with plain static radiographs or flexion-extension radiographs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12768137     DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000061988.93175.74

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


  63 in total

1.  [Bone grafts endoscopically applied to the spine Ergebnisse der anterioren Fusion und therapeutische Konsequenzen].

Authors:  D Briem; J Windolf; W Lehmann; P G C Begemann; N M Meenen; J M Rueger; W Linhart
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  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

3.  Quantitative analysis in outcome assessment of instrumented lumbosacral arthrodesis.

Authors:  Sabina Champain; Christian Mazel; Anca Mitulescu; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Repair of spondylolytic defect with a cable screw reconstruction.

Authors:  Vasudeva S Pai; Bruce Hodgson; Vishal Pai
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-04-13       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion.

Authors:  G H Tan; B G Goss; P J Thorpe; R P Williams
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-05-12       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases.

Authors:  Jérôme Allain; Joël Delecrin; Jacques Beaurain; Alexandre Poignard; Thierry Vila; Charles-Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-06-22       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Preliminary Results of Bioactive Amniotic Suspension with Allograft for Achieving One and Two-Level Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Pierce D Nunley; Eubulus J Kerr; Philip A Utter; David A Cavanaugh; Kelly A Frank; Devan Moody; Brian McManus; Marcus B Stone
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-04-18

8.  Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Jianqiang Ni et al. concerning "ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial" by Hoff EK, Strube P, Pumberger M, et al. (2015) Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3852-y.

Authors:  Michael Putzier; Patrick Strube
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Effect of zoledronic acid on lumbar spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients.

Authors:  Qirui Ding; Jian Chen; Jin Fan; Qingqing Li; Guoyong Yin; Lipeng Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Michael Putzier; Patrick Strube; Julia F Funk; Christian Gross; Hans-Joachim Mönig; Carsten Perka; Axel Pruss
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.