PURPOSE: To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation. METHOD: A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and >1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods >1 year (p < 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group. CONCLUSION: One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.
PURPOSE: To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation. METHOD: A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and >1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods >1 year (p < 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group. CONCLUSION: One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.
Authors: Heath Taylor; Alison H McGregor; Siroos Medhi-Zadeh; Simon Richards; Nostrat Kahn; Jamshied Alaghband Zadeh; Sean P F Hughes Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Douglas Burton; Terence McIff; Tyler Fox; Richard Lark; Marc A Asher; R Chris Glattes Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Steven Glassman; Matthew F Gornet; Charles Branch; David Polly; John Peloza; James D Schwender; Leah Carreon Journal: Spine J Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: R Gejo; Y Kawaguchi; T Kondoh; E Tabuchi; H Matsui; K Torii; T Ono; T Kimura Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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