Literature DB >> 24980582

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 5: correlation between radiographic outcome and function.

Sanjay S Dhall1, Tanvir F Choudhri, Jason C Eck, Michael W Groff, Zoher Ghogawala, William C Watters, Andrew T Dailey, Daniel K Resnick, Alok Sharan, Praveen V Mummaneni, Jeffrey C Wang, Michael G Kaiser.   

Abstract

In an effort to diminish pain or progressive instability, due to either the pathological process or as a result of surgical decompression, one of the primary goals of a fusion procedure is to achieve a solid arthrodesis. Assuming that pain and disability result from lost mechanical integrity of the spine, the objective of a fusion across an unstable segment is to eliminate pathological motion and improve clinical outcome. However, conclusive evidence of this correlation, between successful fusion and clinical outcome, remains elusive, and thus the necessity of documenting successful arthrodesis through radiographic analysis remains debatable. Although a definitive cause and effect relationship has not been demonstrated, there is moderate evidence that demonstrates a positive association between radiographic presence of fusion and improved clinical outcome. Due to this growing body of literature, it is recommended that strategies intended to enhance the potential for radiographic fusion are considered when performing a lumbar arthrodesis for degenerative spine disease.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion; DPQ = Dallas Pain Questionnaire; LBOS = Low Back Outcome Scale; LBPR = Low Back Pain Rating Scale; PLF = posterolateral lumbar fusion; VAS = visual analog scale; fusion; lumbar spine; practice guidelines; treatment outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24980582     DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14268

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


  5 in total

1.  Does Capacitively Coupled Electric Fields Stimulation Improve Clinical Outcomes After Instrumented Spinal Fusion? A Multicentered Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Leo Massari; Giovanni Barbanti Brodano; Stefania Setti; Gaetano Caruso; Enrico Gallazzi; Simona Salati; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-01-20

2.  Long-term (> 10 years) clinical outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  A M Lehr; D Delawi; J L C van Susante; N Verschoor; N Wolterbeek; F C Oner; M C Kruyt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Can activated titanium interbody cages accelerate or enhance spinal fusion? a review of the literature and a design for clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Toop; Connor Gifford; Rouzbeh Motiei-Langroudi; Arghavan Farzadi; Daniel Boulter; Reza Forghani; H Francis Farhadi
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2021-12-18       Impact factor: 3.896

4.  A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Ivo Abraham; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Albert E Telfeian; Morgan P Lorio; Stefan Hellinger; Martin Knight; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira De Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Álvaro Dowling; Manuel Rodriguez Garcia; Fauziyya Muhammad; Namath Hussain; Vicky Yamamoto; Babak Kateb; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-29

5.  Increasing Fusion Rate Between 1 and 2 Years After Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion and the Role of Bone Grafting.

Authors:  A Mechteld Lehr; F Cumhur Oner; Diyar Delawi; Rebecca K Stellato; Eric A Hoebink; Diederik H R Kempen; Job L C van Susante; René M Castelein; Moyo C Kruyt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.241

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.