Retrograde ejaculation after anterior interbody lumbar fusion

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 339-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Tiusanen ◽  
S. Seitsalo ◽  
K. �sterman ◽  
J. Soini
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Retrograde Ejaculation ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

Functional and clinical results after anterior interbody lumbar fusion

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 288-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Tiusanen ◽  
H. Hurri ◽  
S. Seitsalo ◽  
K. �sterman ◽  
R. Harju
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

scholarly journals Comparison of Incidence of Adjacent Segment Pathology between Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Treatments for Lumbosacral Junction

Tomography ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-865
Author(s):  
Po-Kuan Wu ◽  
Meng-Huang Wu ◽  
Cheng-Min Shih ◽  
Yen-Kuang Lin ◽  
Kun-Hui Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbosacral Junction ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

This research compared the incidence of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) between anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF) treatment and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) treatment. Seventy patients were included in this retrospective study: 30 patients received ALIF treatment, and 40 patients received TLIF treatment at a single medical center between 2011 and 2020 with a follow-up of at least 12 months. The outcomes were radiographic adjacent segment pathology (RASP) and clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The mean follow-up period was 42.10 ± 22.61 months in the ALIF group and 56.20 ± 29.91 months in the TLIF group. Following single-level lumbosacral fusion, ALIF is superior to TLIF in maintaining lumbar lordosis, whereas the risk of adjacent instability in the ALIF group is significantly higher. Regarding ASP, the incidence of overall RASP and CASP did not differ significantly between ALIF and TLIF groups.

Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion in Severe Low Back Pain

1996 ◽  
Vol 324 ◽  
pp. 153-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Tiusanen ◽  
S. Seitsalo ◽  
K. ??sterman ◽  
J. Soini
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

scholarly journals Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: Interbody techniques for lumbar fusion

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Jason C. Eck ◽  
Michael W. Groff ◽  
Zoher Ghogawala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Substantial Clinical Benefit ◽  
Freeze Dried ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

Interbody fusion techniques have been promoted as an adjunct to lumbar fusion procedures in an effort to enhance fusion rates and potentially improve clinical outcome. The medical evidence continues to suggest that interbody techniques are associated with higher fusion rates compared with posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis who demonstrate preoperative instability. There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating improved clinical or radiographic outcomes based on the different interbody fusion techniques. The addition of a PLF when posterior or anterior interbody lumbar fusion is performed remains an option, although due to increased cost and complications, it is not recommended. No substantial clinical benefit has been demonstrated when a PLF is included with an interbody fusion. For lumbar degenerative disc disease without instability, there is moderate evidence that the standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has better clinical outcomes than the ALIF plus instrumented, open PLF. With regard to type of interbody spacer used, frozen allograft is associated with lower pseudarthrosis rates compared with freeze-dried allograft; however, this was not associated with a difference in clinical outcome.

The Role of External Transpedicular Fixation in Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

1996 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 433???438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannu Tiusanen ◽  
Seppo Seitsalo ◽  
Kalevi ??sterman ◽  
Juhani Soini
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Transpedicular Fixation ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

Case Example: Adjacent Segment Disease: What Is It, and How Is It Rated?

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-9
Author(s):  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Disc Space Narrowing ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Radiographic Findings ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients

Abstract The incidence of cervical and lumbar fusion surgery has increased in the past twenty years, and during follow-up some of these patients develop changes at the adjacent segment. Recognizing that adjacent segment degeneration and disease may occur in the future does not alter the rating for a cervical or lumbar fusion at the time the patient's condition is determined to be at maximum medical improvement (MMI). The term adjacent segment degeneration refers to the presence of radiographic findings of degenerative disc disease, including disc space narrowing, instability, and so on at the motion segment above or below a cervical or lumbar fusion. Adjacent segment disease refers to the development of new clinical symptoms that correspond to these changes on imaging. The biomechanics of adjacent segment degeneration have been studied, and, although the exact mechanism is uncertain, genetics may play a role. Findings associated with adjacent segment degeneration include degeneration of the facet joints with hypertrophy and thickening of the ligamentum flavum, disc space collapse, and translation—but the clinical significance of these radiographic degenerative changes remains unclear, particularly in light of the known presence of abnormal findings in asymptomatic patients. Evaluators should not rate an individual in anticipation of the development of changes at the level above a fusion, although such a development is a recognized possibility.

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement–NeuroPoint Alliance collaboration to decrease length of stay and readmission after lumbar spine fusion: using national registries to design quality improvement protocols

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 812-821
Author(s):  
Scott L. Zuckerman ◽  
Clinton J. Devin ◽  
Vincent Rossi ◽  
Silky Chotai ◽  
E. Hunter Dyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Discharge Planning ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Nonparametric Tests ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Healthcare Improvement ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVENational databases collect large amounts of clinical information, yet application of these data can be challenging. The authors present the NeuroPoint Alliance and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NPA-IHI) program as a novel attempt to create a quality improvement (QI) tool informed through registry data to improve the quality of care delivered. Reducing the length of stay (LOS) and readmission after elective lumbar fusion was chosen as the pilot module.METHODSThe NPA-IHI program prospectively enrolled patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level lumbar fusions across 8 institutions. A three-pronged approach was taken that included the following phases: 1) Research Phase, 2) Development Phase, and 3) Implementation Phase. Primary outcomes were LOS and readmission. From January to June 2017, a learning system was created utilizing monthly conference calls, weekly data submission, and continuous refinement of the proposed QI tool. Nonparametric tests were used to assess the impact of the QI intervention.RESULTSThe novel QI tool included the following three areas of intervention: 1) preoperative discharge assessment (location, date, and instructions), 2) inpatient changes (LOS rounding checklist, daily huddle, and pain assessments), and 3) postdischarge calls (pain, primary care follow-up, and satisfaction). A total of 209 patients were enrolled, and the most common procedure was a posterior laminectomy/fusion (60.2%). Seven patients (3.3%) were readmitted during the study period. Preoperative discharge planning was completed for 129 patients (61.7%). A shorter median LOS was seen in those with a known preoperative discharge date (67 vs 80 hours, p = 0.018) and clear discharge instructions (71 vs 81 hours, p = 0.030). Patients with a known preoperative discharge plan also reported significantly increased satisfaction (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.028), and patients with increased discharge readiness (scale 0–10) also reported higher satisfaction (r = 0.474, p < 0.001). Those receiving postdischarge calls (76%) had a significantly shorter LOS than those without postdischarge calls (75 vs 99 hours, p = 0.020), although no significant relationship was seen between postdischarge calls and readmission (p = 0.342).CONCLUSIONSThe NPA-IHI program showed that preoperative discharge planning and postdischarge calls have the potential to reduce LOS and improve satisfaction after elective lumbar fusion. It is our hope that neurosurgical providers can recognize how registries can be used to both develop and implement a QI tool and appreciate the importance of QI implementation as a separate process from data collection/analysis.

Effects of preoperative obesity and psychiatric comorbidities on minimum clinically important differences for lumbar fusion in grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis: analysis from the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-642
Author(s):  
Joseph Laratta ◽  
Leah Y. Carreon ◽  
Avery L. Buchholz ◽  
Andrew Y. Yew ◽  
Erica F. Bisson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Preoperative Diagnosis ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Quality Outcomes ◽  
Medical Comorbidities ◽  
Fusion Procedure ◽  
Patient Reported

OBJECTIVEMedical comorbidities, particularly preoperatively diagnosed anxiety, depression, and obesity, may influence how patients perceive and measure clinical benefit after a surgical intervention. The current study was performed to define and compare the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients with and without preoperative diagnoses of anxiety or depression and obesity who underwent spinal fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients who underwent lumbar fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis during the period from January 2014 to August 2017. Collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health status (EQ-5D), and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP). Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for MCID calculation were employed.RESULTSOf 462 patients included in the prospective registry who underwent a decompression and fusion procedure, 356 patients (77.1%) had complete baseline and 12-month PRO data and were included in the study. The MCID values for ODI scores did not significantly differ in patients with and those without a preoperative diagnosis of obesity (20.58 and 20.69, respectively). In addition, the MCID values for ODI scores did not differ in patients with and without a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety or depression (24.72 and 22.56, respectively). Similarly, the threshold MCID values for NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D scores were not statistically different between all groups. Based on both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for determination of MCID thresholds, there were no statistically significant differences between all cohorts.CONCLUSIONSMCID thresholds were similar for ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP in patients with and without preoperative diagnoses of anxiety or depression and obesity undergoing spinal fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Preoperative clinical and shared decision-making may be improved by understanding that preoperative medical comorbidities may not affect the way patients experience and assess important clinical changes postoperatively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document