Literature DB >> 19794171

A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine.

D Grob1, V Bartanusz, D Jeszenszky, F S Kleinstück, F Lattig, D O'Riordan, A F Mannion.   

Abstract

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); 'good' global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19794171     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B10.22195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  7 in total

1.  Should smoking habit dictate the fusion technique?

Authors:  A Luca; A F Mannion; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kristian Høy; Cody Bünger; Bent Niederman; Peter Helmig; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Haisheng Li; Thomas Andersen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  CT-based morphometric analysis of C1 laminar dimensions: C1 translaminar screw fixation is a feasible technique for salvage of atlantoaxial fusions.

Authors:  Andrew Yew; Derek Lu; Daniel C Lu
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-05-07

4.  A Biomechanical Stability Study of Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Cadaveric Lumbar Spine Specimens.

Authors:  Song Guo; Cheng Zeng; Meijun Yan; Yingchao Han; Dongdong Xia; Guixin Sun; Lijun Li; Mingjie Yang; Jun Tan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Biomechanics and Clinical Application of Translaminar Screws Fixation in Spine: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Jimmy J Chan; Nicholas Shepard; Woojin Cho
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-04-19

6.  Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar facet screw fixation and interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment lower lumbar vertebral disease: surgical technique and preliminary clinical results.

Authors:  Peng Huang; Yiguo Wang; Jiao Xu; Bo Xiao; Jianheng Liu; Luyang Che; Keya Mao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Trajectory of Lumbar Translaminar Facet Screw Under Navigation: A Cadaveric Study.

Authors:  Weerasak Singhatanadgige; Kittisak Songthong; Phattareeya Pholprajug; Wicharn Yingsakmongkol; Vit Kotheeranurak; Worawat Limthongkul
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-10-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.