Literature DB >> 30276077

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Ripul Panchal1, Ryan Denhaese2, Clint Hill3, K Brandon Strenge3, Alexandre DE Moura4, Peter Passias4, Paul Arnold5, Andrew Cappuccino6, M David Dennis7, Andy Kranenburg8, Brieta Ventimiglia9, Kim Martin9, Chris Ferry9, Sarah Martineck10, Camille Moore11, Kee Kim1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months).
RESULTS: For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure.
CONCLUSION: ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ALIF; ISPF; LLIF; MIS; anterior lumbar interbody fusion; degenerative disc disease; interspinous process fixation; lateral lumbar interbody fusion; lumbar spine; minimally invasive; posterior fixation; spondylolisthesis

Year:  2018        PMID: 30276077      PMCID: PMC6159706          DOI: 10.14444/5025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  62 in total

Review 1.  Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion.

Authors:  Benjamin J Shin; Andrew R James; Innocent U Njoku; Roger Härtl
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-06-22

2.  A novel lateral lumbar integrated plate-spacer interbody implant: in vitro biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Sushil Basra; Brandon Bucklen; Aditya Muzumdar; Saif Khalil; Manasa Gudipally
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 4.166

3.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with integrated fixation and adjunctive posterior stabilization: A comparative biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Matthew S Yeager; Derrick A Dupre; Daniel J Cook; Michael Y Oh; Daniel T Altman; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Biomechanical stability of lateral interbody implants and supplemental fixation in a cadaveric degenerative spondylolisthesis model.

Authors:  Guy R Fogel; Alexander W L Turner; Zachary A Dooley; G Bryan Cornwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joseph A Sclafani; Choll W Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Accelerated L5-S1 Segment Degeneration after Spinal Fusion on and above L4-5 : Minimum 4-Year Follow-Up Results.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Dong Kyu Chin; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-02-28

Review 7.  Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Christina L Goldstein; Kevin Macwan; Kala Sundararajan; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2015-11-13

8.  Clinical evaluation of the preliminary safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive interspinous process device APERIUS(®) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with symptomatic neurogenic intermittent claudication.

Authors:  Jan Van Meirhaeghe; Patrick Fransen; Daniele Morelli; Niall J A Craig; Gregor Godde; Attila Mihalyi; Frederic Collignon
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion.

Authors:  Guy R Fogel; John S Toohey; Arvo Neidre; John W Brantigan
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-05-29       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  A Comparative Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Abhijit Y Pawar; Alexander P Hughes; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Darren R Lebl; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-09-22
View more
  2 in total

1.  Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui-Min Li; Ren-Jie Zhang; Cai-Liang Shen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 2.  Interspinous Process (ISP) Devices in Comparison to the Use of Traditional Posterior Spinal Instrumentation.

Authors:  Jordan E Faulkner; Kareem Khalifeh; Junko Hara; Burak Ozgur
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-03-14
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.