Literature DB >> 28266955

Clinical Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Conventional Pedicle Screw Insertion.

Shota Takenaka1, Yoshihiro Mukai1, Kosuke Tateishi1, Noboru Hosono1, Takeshi Fuji1, Takashi Kaito2.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This study is a retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) and conventional pedicle screw (PS) techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are few published studies to date comparing PLIF using CBT technique with PLIF using the conventional PS technique.
METHODS: We studied 119 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF between 2010 and 2014 with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Forty-two patients underwent CBT-PLIF (the CBT group) and 77 underwent conventional PS-PLIF (the PS group). Clinical outcomes were assessed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and visual analog scale (VAS). To assess perioperative pain, a 6-point Numeric Rating Scale score and the total amount of diclofenac sodium suppositories used were recorded. The operative time and blood loss were recorded. Muscle damage was evaluated by serum creatine kinase concentrations. Fusion status was evaluated using 3-dimensional computed tomography 12 months postoperatively. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the propensity score to reduce confounding factors.
RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in operative time or fusion rates, whereas the CBT group experienced significantly less blood loss, lower postoperative creatine kinase levels, less diclofenac sodium suppositories, and lower Numeric Rating Scale scores than the PS group did. The change in the JOABPEQ subdomain score for social life function 1 month postoperatively was the only significantly different factor among the JOABPEQ and VAS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were comparable in terms of clinical outcomes and fusion rates, but CBT-PLIF provided the additional benefits of less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage, less perioperative pain, and earlier recovery to normal activities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28266955     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000514

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Spine Surg        ISSN: 2380-0186            Impact factor:   1.876


  14 in total

Review 1.  Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screw fixation and traditional pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jizhou Wang; Xiaoqi He; Tianwei Sun
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Systematic review of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques for lumbosacral spine fusion.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Vignesh Ramachandran; Tommy M Tran; Kevin P Shah; Matthew Fadhil; Alan Lackey; Nicholas Chang; Ai-Min Wu; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12

3.  Accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement in midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) with intraoperative cone beam navigation.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Jamal N Shillingford; Andrew J Pugely; Karishma Gupta; Jeffrey L Gum; Mladen Djurasovic; Charles H Crawford
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12

4.  Computer-assisted Patient-specific Prototype Template for Thoracolumbar Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Placement: A Cadaveric Study.

Authors:  Sang Bum Kim; John M Rhee; Gi Soo Lee; Hee Young Lee; Taehyung Kim; Yougun Won
Journal:  Tech Orthop       Date:  2017-12-25

5.  Comparison of outcomes between cortical screws and traditional pedicle screws for lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tingxin Zhang; Nana Guo; Tiantian Chen; Jinglong Yan; Wei Zhao; Gongping Xu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 6.  Comparison of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques in lumbar fusion surgery: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jing-Nan Hu; Xiao-Feng Yang; Chuan-Ming Li; Xin-Xin Li; Yun-Zhi Ding
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Comparison of Different Insertion Techniques for Lumbosacral Fixation Improvement: A Finite Element Study.

Authors:  Da-Peng Han; Jia-Yin Wang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.071

8.  Double-trajectory lumbar screw placement guided by a set of 3D-printed surgical guide templates: a cadaver study.

Authors:  Yonghui Zhao; Jinlong Liang; Haotian Luo; Yongqing Xu; Sheng Lu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Feasibility of cortical bone trajectory screws for bridging fixation in revision surgery for lumbar adjacent segment degeneration.

Authors:  Long Wang; Yong-Hui Zhao; Xing-Bo Cai; Jin-Long Liang; Hao-Tian Luo; Yu-Long Ma; Yong-Qing Xu; Sheng Lu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Surgical Invasiveness of Single-Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Perioperative Blood Loss in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Traditional Pedicle Screws, Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws, and Percutaneous Pedicle Screws.

Authors:  Tetsuji Inoue; Masaya Mizutamari; Kuniaki Hatake
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2020-12-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.