Literature DB >> 3175759

Results of L4-L5 disc excision alone versus disc excision and fusion.

P A Vaughan1, B W Malcolm, G L Maistrelli.   

Abstract

We evaluated the results of 85 patients having L4-L5 disc excision (52 having disc excision alone, and 33 having disc excision and fusion) using the Smiley-Webster scale at an average follow-up of 7.3 years. Both groups (fusion and nonfusion) were comparable except that the nonfusion group had a significantly higher percentage of patients with a history of chronic back pain and degenerative changes on their initial radiographs. The fusion group had significantly better results compared with the nonfusion group (85% satisfactory results versus 39% satisfactory results). The most common cause of unsatisfactory results in the fusion group was pseudarthrosis (two) while progressive degenerative disc disease (18) and recurrent disc prolapse (eight) were the most common cause of unsatisfactory results in the nonfusion group. The overall reoperation rate was 9.4% (13.5% in the nonfusion group, and 3% in the fusion group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3175759

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  13 in total

1.  [State of the art of lumbar intervertebral disc replacement].

Authors:  K Zarghooni; J Siewe; P Eysel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Fragment excision versus conventional disc removal in the microsurgical treatment of herniated lumbar disc.

Authors:  K Faulhauer; C Manicke
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.216

3.  A history of lumbar disc herniation from Hippocrates to the 1990s.

Authors:  Eeric Truumees
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Reoperation of decompression alone or decompression plus fusion surgeries for degenerative lumbar diseases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Zhao Lang; Jing-Sheng Li; Felix Yang; Yan Yu; Kamran Khan; Louis G Jenis; Thomas D Cha; James D Kang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Can povidone-iodine solution be used safely in a spinal surgery?

Authors:  Fang-Yeng Chang; Ming-Chau Chang; Shih-Tien Wang; Wing-Kwang Yu; Chien-Lin Liu; Tain-Hsiung Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Is sequestrectomy a viable alternative to microdiscectomy? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Bahram Fakouri; Nitin R Shetty; Thomas C H White
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Results of lumbar discectomy: a study using 15 different evaluation methods.

Authors:  D S Korres; G Loupassis; K Stamos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Major vascular injury during lumbar laminectomy.

Authors:  E Ezra; J L Richenberg; W A Smellie
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 18.000

9.  Comparison of Functional Outcomes Between Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Discectomy in Massive Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Anuj Gupta; H S Chhabra; D Nagarjuna; Mohit Arora
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-19

10.  Dynamic stabilization for challenging lumbar degenerative diseases of the spine: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Tuncay Kaner; Ali Fahir Ozer
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-04-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.