Literature DB >> 8831120

Fusion rate after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with carbon fiber implant: 1-year follow-up of 51 patients.

T Tullberg1, B Brandt, J Rydberg, P Fritzell.   

Abstract

Problems associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) have traditionally included the need for donor bone, prolonged healing time of donor bone, the difficulty of cutting precise bony channels, the risk of retropulsion of graft, postoperative collapse of the bone graft, and pseudarthrosis. To avoid these problems a carbon fiber reinforced polymer implant cage has been developed to facilitate interbody fusion. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical problems and fusion rate associated with these new device for PLIF. Between April 1991 and December 1993, 65 pairs of these implant cages were sold in Sweden. They were traced to six hospitals, where they had been used in the treatment of 51 patients operated on at a total of 65 levels. All PLIF were supplemented with VSP (Variable Screw Placement) instrumentation. All medical records were evaluated and all patients were examined with plain radiographs taken at least 1 year after surgery. If that investigation did not show a clear fusion they were also evaluated with CT (18 patients, 27 levels). No intraoperative problems with the device have been reported; 44 patients (86%) and 58 levels (89%) achieved successful fusion. All patients bar one maintained their immediately obtained postoperative disc height. CT with 1-mm slices and sagittal reconstruction is most helpful if radiographs are difficult to interpret.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8831120     DOI: 10.1007/bf00395510

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  16 in total

1.  The dowel intervertebral-body fusion as used in lumbar-disc surgery.

Authors:  B R WILTBERGER
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1957-04       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  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

3.  CT evaluation of interbody fusion.

Authors:  S L Rothman; W V Glenn
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions.

Authors:  S L Blumenthal; K Gill
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The variable screw placement spinal fixation system. Report of a prospective study of 250 patients enrolled in Food and Drug Administration clinical trials.

Authors:  A D Steffee; J W Brantigan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts.

Authors:  J W Simmons
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Total disc replacement: a modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Report of 750 cases.

Authors:  J S Collis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Chronic disabling low back pain syndrome caused by internal disc derangements. The results of disc excision and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  C K Lee; P Vessa; J K Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Pseudarthrosis rate after allograft posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw and plate fixation.

Authors:  J W Brantigan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  14 in total

1.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: does stable anterior fixation matter?

Authors:  S S Madan; J M Harley; N R Boeree
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation.

Authors:  Alexander Abbushi; Mario Cabraja; Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale; Christian Woiciechowsky; Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A novel synthetic material for spinal fusion: a prospective clinical trial of porous bioactive titanium metal for lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Shunsuke Fujibayashi; Mitsuru Takemoto; Masashi Neo; Tomiharu Matsushita; Tadashi Kokubo; Kenji Doi; Tatsuya Ito; Akira Shimizu; Takashi Nakamura
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Radiological evaluation of anterior lumbar fusion using PEEK cages with adjacent vertebral autograft in spinal deformity long fusion surgeries.

Authors:  Jianqiang Ni; Yanping Zheng; Ning Liu; Xin Wang; Xiutong Fang; Rishabh Phukan; Kirkham B Wood
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-25       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion.

Authors:  S S Madan; N R Boeree
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-08-28       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Trabecular metal spacers as standalone or with pedicle screw augmentation, in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Erik Van de Kelft; Johan Van Goethem
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Do autologous growth factors enhance transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

Authors:  Hwan T Hee; Mohammad E Majd; Richard T Holt; Leann Myers
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-05-22       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion in adult spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Ching-Hsiao Yu; Chen-Ti Wang; Po-Quang Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  100 consecutive cases of degenerative lumbar conditions using a non-threaded locking screw system with a 90-degree locking cap.

Authors:  Paul C McAfee; Bryan W Cunningham; P Justin Tortolani; Ira L Fedder; John C Sefter; Charles Davis
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2009-03-01

10.  A 10-year follow-up of transpedicular screw fixation and intervertebral autogenous posterior iliac crest bone graft or intervertebral B-Twin system in failed back surgery syndrome.

Authors:  Rafael Cincu; Francisco de Asis Lorente; Joaquin Gomez; Jose Eiras; Amit Agrawal
Journal:  Asian J Neurosurg       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.