Literature DB >> 16028732

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion.

Daniel K Resnick1, Tanvir F Choudhri, Andrew T Dailey, Michael W Groff, Larry Khoo, Paul G Matz, Praveen Mummaneni, William C Watters, Jeffrey Wang, Beverly C Walters, Mark N Hadley.   

Abstract

The assessment of fusion status with static plain radiography is accurate in approximately two thirds of patients treated with lumbar fusion when the radiographic results are compared with surgical exploration findings. Therefore, static plain radiography is not recommended as a stand-alone modality following lumbar fusion procedures. The addition of lateral flexion-extension radiography may improve accuracy because the lack of motion between fused lumbar segments on lateral views is highly suggestive of a solid fusion. Some degree of motion between segments may be present even when the spine has fused. The amount of motion allowable across fused segments is not clear, and the role of internal fixation in limiting motion has also not been adequately addressed. The addition of multiplanar CT scanning results in the detection of pseudarthrosis in some patients in whom fusion has been deemed successful based on plain radiographic criteria. Therefore, CT scanning may be more accurate in the determination of fusion status than plain radiography; however, a rigorous comparison of modern CT scanning and surgical exploration has not been performed. It appears that RSA is exquisitely sensitive for the detection of motion between vertebral bodies, and the loss of motion between treated vertebral segments does appear to indicate the presence of fusion. The modality, however, is invasive and not widely available. Furthermore, the only

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16028732     DOI: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.6.0653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  13 in total

1.  Interobserver agreement in fusion status assessment after instrumental desis of the lower lumbar spine using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography: impact of observer experience.

Authors:  Borislav Laoutliev; Inger Havsteen; Birthe Højlund Bech; Eva Narvestad; Hanne Christensen; Anders Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-02-19       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Union versus nonunion after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a comparison of long-term surgical outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Takahiro Tsutsumimoto; Mitsuhiko Shimogata; Yasuo Yoshimura; Hiromichi Misawa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

4.  Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Pedro Berjano; Francesco Langella; Marco Damilano; Matteo Pejrona; Josip Buric; Maryem Ismael; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Claudio Lamartina
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Quantitative in vivo fusion assessment by (18)F-fluoride PET/CT following en bloc spondylectomy.

Authors:  Matthias Pumberger; Vikas Prasad; Claudia Druschel; Alexander C Disch; Winfried Brenner; Klaus-Dieter Schaser
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Fusion rate and clinical outcome in anterior lumbar interbody fusion with beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute. A prospective clinical study in fifty patients.

Authors:  Ricarda Lechner; David Putzer; Michael Liebensteiner; Christian Bach; Martin Thaler
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Stand-alone cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of high-degree degenerative disc disease: design of a new device for an "old" technique. A prospective study on a series of 116 patients.

Authors:  Francesco Costa; Marco Sassi; Alessandro Ortolina; Andrea Cardia; Roberto Assietti; Alberto Zerbi; Martin Lorenzetti; Fabio Galbusera; Maurizio Fornari
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Fusion after minimally disruptive anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Analysis of extreme lateral interbody fusion by computed tomography.

Authors:  W B Rodgers; Edward J Gerber; Jamie R Patterson
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2010-06-01

9.  Randomized Controlled Trial of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Ti- and CaP-Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone Cages: Comparative Study of the 1-Year Radiological and Clinical Outcome.

Authors:  Karel Willems; Philippe Lauweryns; Gino Verleye; Johan VAN Goethem
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12-31

10.  Reliability analysis of radiographic methods for determination of posterolateral lumbossacral fusion.

Authors:  Alberto Ofenhejm Gotfryd; Felipe de Moraes Pomar; Nicola Jorge Carneiro Neto; Fernando José Franzin; Luciano Miller Reis Rodrigues; Patricia Rios Poletto
Journal:  Einstein (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2014-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.