Literature DB >> 16028745

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 17: bone growth stimulators and lumbar 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

There have been a number of randomized studies supporting the use of ES for the promotion of bone healing following lumbar fusion. All of the published studies have methodological flaws that prevent the studies from providing Class I medical evidence. There is, however, Class II and III evidence to support the use of direct current stimulation or CCS for enhancing fusion rates in high-risk patients undergoing lumbar PLF. A beneficial effect on fusion rates in patients not at "high risk" has not been convincingly demonstrated, nor has an effect been shown for these modalities in patients treated with interbody fusion. There is limited evidence both for and against the use of PEMFS for enhancing fusion rates following PLE Class II and III medical evidence supports the use of PEMFS for promoting arthrodesis following interbody fusion. Although some studies have purported to demonstrate functional improvement in some patient subgroups, other studies have not detected differences. All of the reviewed studies are significantly flawed by the use of a four-point patient satisfaction scale as the primary outcome measure. This outcome measure is not validated. Because of the use of this flawed outcome measure and because of the conflicting results reported in the better-designed studies that assess functional outcome, there is no consistent medical evidence to support or refute use of these devices for improving patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16028745     DOI: 10.3171/spi.2005.2.6.0737

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Rational decision making in a wide scenario of different minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion approaches and devices.

Authors:  Luiz Pimenta; Antoine Tohmeh; David Jones; Rodrigo Amaral; Luis Marchi; Leonardo Oliveira; Bruce C Pittman; Hyun Bae
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03

2.  Limited post-operative dexamethasone use does not affect lumbar fusion: a single institutional experience.

Authors:  Owoicho Adogwa; Victoria D Vuong; Daniel T Lilly; Shyam A Desai; Ryan Khanna; Shahjehan Ahmad; Josha Woodward; Syed Khalid; Joseph Cheng
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

3.  Lateral interbody fusion for treatment of discogenic low back pain: minimally invasive surgical techniques.

Authors:  Luis Marchi; Leonardo Oliveira; Rodrigo Amaral; Carlos Castro; Thiago Coutinho; Etevaldo Coutinho; Luiz Pimenta
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2012-04-03

Review 4.  Electrical stimulation to enhance spinal fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paul Park; Darryl Lau; Erika D Brodt; Joseph R Dettori
Journal:  Evid Based Spine Care J       Date:  2014-10

5.  The Results of Using a Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage at the Upper Lumbar Level.

Authors:  Uzay Erdoğan
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-06-07

6.  Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion: stand-alone interbody cage versus interbody cage with pedicle screw fixation -- a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Kyung-Chul Choi; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Sang-Ho Lee; Yeong Hyeon Kim; Sung Jae Lee; Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.