Literature DB >> 18846411

Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in adult spondylolisthesis.

Ching-Hsiao Yu1, Chen-Ti Wang, Po-Quang Chen.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: It is unclear whether using artificial cages increases fusion rates compared with use of bone chips alone in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. We hypothesized artificial cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion would provide better clinical and radiographic outcomes than bone chips alone. We assumed solid fusion would provide good clinical outcomes. We clinically and radiographically followed 34 patients with spondylolisthesis having posterior lumbar interbody fusion with mixed autogenous and allogeneic bone chips alone and 42 patients having posterior lumbar interbody fusion with implantation of artificial cages packed with morselized bone graft. Patients with the artificial cage had better functional improvement in the Oswestry disability index than those with bone chips alone, whereas pain score, patient satisfaction, and fusion rate were similar in the two groups. Postoperative disc height ratio, slip ratio, and segmental lordosis all decreased at final followup in the patients with bone chips alone but remained unchanged in the artificial cage group. The functional outcome correlated with radiographic fusion status. We conclude artificial cages provide better functional outcomes and radiographic improvement than bone chips alone in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis, although both techniques achieved comparable fusion rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18846411      PMCID: PMC2628248          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0511-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  49 in total

1.  Fusion rates in multilevel cervical spondylosis comparing allograft fibula with autograft fibula in 126 patients.

Authors:  J C Fernyhough; J I White; H LaRocca
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Harvesting autogenous iliac bone grafts. A review of complications and techniques.

Authors:  L T Kurz; S R Garfin; R E Booth
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Spondylolisthesis: treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion.

Authors:  R B Cloward
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1981 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anterior interbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine.

Authors:  D Chen; L A Fay; J Lok; P Yuan; W T Edwards; H A Yuan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions.

Authors:  S L Blumenthal; K Gill
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 6.  Interbody fusion and instrumentation.

Authors:  P Enker; A D Steffee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts.

Authors:  J W Simmons
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  A biomechanical analysis of the clinical stability of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  I Posner; A A White; W T Edwards; W C Hayes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1982 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  S I Suk; C K Lee; W J Kim; J H Lee; K J Cho; H G Kim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Fusion rate after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with carbon fiber implant: 1-year follow-up of 51 patients.

Authors:  T Tullberg; B Brandt; J Rydberg; P Fritzell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  10 in total

1.  Evaluation of unilateral cage-instrumented fixation for lumbar spine.

Authors:  Ti-Sheng Chang; Jia-Hao Chang; Chien-Shiung Wang; Hung-Yi Chen; Ching-Wei Cheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 2.  A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Xiaoyang Liu; Yipeng Wang; Guixing Qiu; Xisheng Weng; Bin Yu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A UK-based pilot study of current surgical practice and implant preferences in lumbar fusion surgery.

Authors:  Elena Provaggi; Claudio Capelli; Julian J H Leong; Deepak M Kalaskar
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Combination of Hydroxyapatite and Demineralized Bone Matrix and Autografts for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Asrafi Rizki Gatam; Luthfi Gatam; Singkat Dohar Lumban Tobing
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-10-11

5.  Characteristics and correlation analysis of spino-pelvic sagittal parameters in elderly patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

Authors:  Qiang Wang; Chang-Tai Sun
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Two-year results of a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus silicon nitride spinal fusion cages in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders.

Authors:  Bryan J McEntire; Greg Maslin; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-09

7.  Pedicle-Screw-Based Dynamic Systems and Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: Biomechanical and Clinical Experiences of Dynamic Fusion with Isobar TTL.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Gilles Perrin; Sabina Champain
Journal:  ISRN Orthop       Date:  2013-01-21

8.  Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion in Monosegmental Vacuum Phenomenon within an Intervertebral Disc.

Authors:  Ki-Chan An; Gyu-Min Kong; Dae-Hyun Park; Jong-Min Baik; Ji-Hong Youn; Woon-Seong Lee
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-02-16

9.  Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Bin Lin; Hui Yu; Zhida Chen; Zhuanzhi Huang; Wenbin Zhang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Elsayed Said; Mohamed E Abdel-Wanis; Mohamed Ameen; Ali A Sayed; Khaled H Mosallam; Ahmed M Ahmed; Hamdy Tammam
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2021-05-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.