Literature DB >> 16021014

Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages.

Adam T Groth1, Timothy R Kuklo, William R Klemme, David W Polly, Teresa M Schroeder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Segmental restoration of sagittal contour is recognized as critical for improved long-term success following instrumented lumbar fusions. As such, the use of wedged implants has become more popular. Few studies exist to assess the postoperative lordotic and disc height changes following these varied techniques in spinal fusion. An observational radiographic study examining lumbar sagittal contour and posterior intervertebral disc space height following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was conducted using vertical cages (VCs), wedged structural allograft (WSA), and threaded cylindrical cages (TCCs).
METHODS: Forty-nine consecutive patients (59 spinal segments) were evaluated following single- or two-level interbody fusion with either stand-alone TCCs (n = 18 levels), WSA with posterior transpedicular compression instrumentation (n = 25 levels), or VCs with posterior transpedicular compression instrumentation (n = 16 levels). Standing lumbar radiographs were measured by two independent observers preoperatively, immediately postoperatively (within 1 week), at 6-week follow-up (range 4-8 weeks), and postoperatively (at 1-year follow-up) for segmental lordosis at each level undergoing posterior interbody arthrodesis and posterior intervertebral disc space height to assess indirect nerve root decompression.
RESULTS: At the 1-year follow-up, postoperative lordosis was improved in the VC group (+5.3 degrees ; P < 0.005), whereas it decreased in the WSA group (-0.9 degrees ; P = 0.407) and TCC group (-3.5 degrees ; P < 0.005). The posterior disc space height decreased in the VC group (-0.5 mm; P = 0.109), whereas it increased for both the WSA group (+1.2 mm; P = 0.05) and the TCC group (+0.8 mm; P = 0.219).
CONCLUSIONS: PLIF with stand-alone TCC and PLIF (or TLIF) with WSA and posterior transpedicular instrumentation results in an increased posterior disc height and thus improved indirect nerve root decompression. PLIF (or TLIF) with VC and posterior transpedicular instrumentation results in an overall decrease in posterior disc height. However, TCC and WSA resulted in a loss of lumbar lordosis, whereas VC resulted in an increase in lumbar lordosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16021014     DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000163037.17634.89

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  11 in total

1.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction.

Authors:  Priyan R Landham; Angus S Don; Peter A Robertson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion.

Authors:  Christopher K Kepler; Russel C Huang; Amit K Sharma; Dennis S Meredith; Ochuko Metitiri; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

3.  Restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): comparison between straight type versus curvilinear type cage.

Authors:  Jong-Tae Kim; Myung-Hoon Shin; Ho-Jin Lee; Du-Yong Choi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Radiographic results of single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease: focusing on changes of segmental lordosis in fusion segment.

Authors:  Sang-Bum Kim; Taek-Soo Jeon; Youn-Moo Heo; Woo-Suk Lee; Jin-Woong Yi; Tae-Kyun Kim; Cheol-Mog Hwang
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2009-11-25

Review 5.  Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gursukhman S Sidhu; Erik Henkelman; Alexander R Vaccaro; Todd J Albert; Alan Hilibrand; D Greg Anderson; Jeffrey A Rihn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Long Term Efficacy of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Standard Cages alone in Lumbar Disc Diseases Combined with Modic Changes.

Authors:  Young-Min Kwon; Dong-Kyu Chin; Byung-Ho Jin; Keun-Su Kim; Yong-Eun Cho; Sung-Uk Kuh
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-10-31

7.  Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in adult spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Ching-Hsiao Yu; Chen-Ti Wang; Po-Quang Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  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

9.  Direction-changeable lumbar cage versus traditional lumbar cage for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Haiping Zhang; Yonghong Jiang; Biao Wang; Qinpeng Zhao; Simin He; Dingjun Hao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Improvement of Segmental Lordosis in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Two Techniques.

Authors:  James W Rice; Cara L Sedney; Scott D Daffner; Justin W Arner; Sanford E Emery; John C France
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.