Literature DB >> 26830783

Comparing the early efficacies of autologous bone grafting and interbody fusion cages for treating degenerative lumbar instability in patients of different ages.

Hua-Zhang Zhong1, Da-Sheng Tian1, Yun Zhou2,3, Jue-Hua Jing1, Jun Qian1, Lei Chen1, Bin Zhu1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the early efficacies of interbody fusion using autologous bone graft or an interbody fusion cage in a modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients of different ages with degenerative lumbar instability.
METHODS: Data from 33 patients with double-segment degenerative lumbar instability treated with a modified TLIF combined with a posterior fixation system from December 2008 to June 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. The two segments separately received an interbody bone graft fusion and an interbody fusion cage. Patients were divided by age into group A (middle-aged and elderly group, age ≥ 55 years, n = 13) and group B (young adult group, age < 55 years, n = 20). The clinical efficacy of the modified TLIF combined with a posterior fixation system was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores obtained before and after surgery, and at final follow-up. We measured the mean intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, lumbar lordosis angle, and inter-technique differences in the mean intervertebral space height and intervertebral foramen height. Interbody fusion was evaluated using the Suk standard.
RESULTS: Patients in group A followed-up for 19.15 ± 8.01 months. Patients in group B followed-up for 14.80 ± 5.47 months. The post-operative JOA, ODI, VAS, and lumbar lordosis angle were improved significantly. Moreover, the early clinical follow-up effect was good. In group A, significant differences in the intervertebral foramen height post-surgery and at final follow-up, and the mean intervertebral space height at final follow-up were noted. The intervertebral foramen and space heights were increased in the interbody cage group. In group B, a significant difference in the intervertebral foramen height at final follow-up was noted. The mean intervertebral space height post-surgery and at final follow-up was significantly increased between the two fusion methods. Bony fusion was achieved in all cases. The fusion time of autologous bone graft and interbody fusion cage was 5.46 ± 1.20 months and 6.77 ± 1.01 months respectively in group A, and 5.50 ± 1.28 months and 6.35 ± 1.76 months respectively in group B, the difference in fusion time between techniques was significant.
CONCLUSION: At different ages, the interbody fusion cages can better preserve the intervertebral space and the intervertebral foramen height. However, autologous bone graft can rapidly achieve a bony fusion. Interbody fusion cages are therefore ideal for young adults, while autologous bone grafting is ideal for middle-aged and elderly patients who receive a modified TLIF.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone graft; Degenerative lumbar instability; Interbody fusion cage; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26830783     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3124-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  30 in total

Review 1.  Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review.

Authors:  T R Oxland; T Lund
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  An experimental study on the interface strength between titanium mesh cage and vertebra in reference to vertebral bone mineral density.

Authors:  K Hasegawa; M Abe; T Washio; T Hara
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Aaron R Cutler; Saquib Siddiqui; Avinash L Mohan; Virany H Hillard; Franco Cerabona; Kaushik Das
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2006-12

4.  Comparison of disc space heights after anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  S Dennis; R Watkins; S Landaker; W Dillin; D Springer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity.

Authors:  Vivek A Mehta; Matthew J McGirt; Giannina L Garcés Ambrossi; Scott L Parker; Daniel M Sciubba; Ali Bydon; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham
Journal:  Neurol Res       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.448

6.  Clinical and radiologic outcomes of TLIF applications with or without pedicle screw: a double center prospective pilot comparative study.

Authors:  Kadir Kotil; Mustafa Ali Akçetin; Yildiray Savaş
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2013-10

Review 7.  Interbody cage devices.

Authors:  Thomas A Zdeblick; Frank M Phillips
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  An experimental lumbar intertransverse process spinal fusion model. Radiographic, histologic, and biomechanical healing characteristics.

Authors:  S D Boden; J H Schimandle; W C Hutton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Clinico-radiological profile of indirect neural decompression using cage or auto graft as interbody construct in posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis: Which is better?

Authors:  Q R Abdul; M S Qayum; M V Saradhi; M K Panigrahi; V Sreedhar
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2011-01

10.  Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Have Advantages over Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

Authors:  Takahito Fujimori; Hai Le; William W Schairer; Sigurd H Berven; Erion Qamirani; Serena S Hu
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2014-12-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  SPINAL SPECIAL EDITION EDITORIAL.

Authors:  Andrew Quaile
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Incidence and risk factors of posterior cage migration following decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders.

Authors:  Hua Li; Hui Wang; Yanbo Zhu; Wenyuan Ding; Qian Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.889

3.  A Minimally Invasive Technique Using Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws Assisted by 3D-Printed Navigation Templates in Lumbar Adjacent Segment Degeneration.

Authors:  Kun He; Chunke Dong; Hongyu Wei; Feng Yang; Haoning Ma; Xiangsheng Tang; Mingsheng Tan; Ping Yi
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 4.458

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.