Literature DB >> 21602520

A review of lumbar spinal instrumentation: evidence and controversy.

Maya A Babu1, Jean-Valery C Coumans, Bob S Carter, William R Taylor, Ekkehard M Kasper, Ben Z Roitberg, William E Krauss, Clark C Chen.   

Abstract

Disability secondary to disorders of the spine is a significant problem worldwide. In the USA, there has been a recent surge in the costs associated with caring for spinal pathology; from 1997 to 2005, there was a growth of 65% in healthcare expenditures on spinal disease, totalling $86 billion in 2005. Increasingly, there has been media and public scrutiny over the rapid rise in the volume of procedures with spinal instrumentation; some have suggested that this rise has been fuelled by non-medical drivers such as the financial incentives involved with the use of instrumentation; others suggest that innovation in spine technology and devices has led to improved options for the treatment of spine pathology.In this context, we conducted a review of the literature to assess the use of instrumentation in lumbar procedures and its relationship to successful fusion and patient outcome. Our review suggests that there is data supporting the thesis that lumbar instrumentation improves rates of fusion. However, there is no consistent correlation between increased rates of fusion and improved patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21602520     DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2010.231860

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry        ISSN: 0022-3050            Impact factor:   10.154


  6 in total

1.  Is Osteogenic Differentiation of Human Nucleus Pulposus Cells a Possibility for Biological Spinal Fusion?

Authors:  Sharon J Brown; Sarah A Turner; Birender S Balain; Neil T Davidson; Sally Roberts
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement.

Authors:  Ranjith Babu; Jong G Park; Ankit I Mehta; Tony Shan; Peter M Grossi; Christopher R Brown; William J Richardson; Robert E Isaacs; Carlos A Bagley; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Oren N Gottfried
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  Trabecular metal spacers as standalone or with pedicle screw augmentation, in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Erik Van de Kelft; Johan Van Goethem
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study.

Authors:  Chia-En Wong; Hsuan-Teh Hu; Li-Hsing Kao; Che-Jung Liu; Ke-Chuan Chen; Kuo-Yuan Huang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.

Authors:  Brian P Walcott; Sameer A Sheth; Brian V Nahed; Jean-Valery Coumans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Uninstrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  Kourosh Jalalpour; Pavel Neumann; Christer Johansson; Rune Hedlund
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-03-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.