scholarly journals Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Interspinous Fastener Provides Comparable Clinical Outcome and Fusion Rate to Pedicle Screws

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-205
Author(s):  
Wei-min Huang ◽  
Xing-ming Yu ◽  
Xiao-duo Xu ◽  
Ruo-xian Song ◽  
Li-li Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Maximal Muscle Sparing—A Prospective Comparative Study with the Traditional Open Technique

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Marengo ◽  
Marco Ajello ◽  
Michele Federico Pecoraro ◽  
Giulia Pilloni ◽  
Giovanni Vercelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
One Year ◽  
Muscular Damage

Introduction. A prospective comparative study between classical posterior interbody fusion with peduncular screws and the new technique with divergent cortical screws was conducted. Material and Methods. Only patients with monosegmental degenerative disease were recruited into this study. We analyzed a cohort of 40 patients treated from January 2015 to March 2016 divided into 2 groups (20 patients went to traditional open surgery and 20 patients under mini-invasive strategy). Primary endpoints of this study are fusion rate and muscular damage; secondary endpoints analyzed were three different clinical scores (ODI, VAS, and EQ) and the morbidity rate of both techniques. Results. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the two techniques. In addition, a significant difference in muscular damage was found according to the MRI evaluation. Clinical outcomes, based on pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index status, and Euroquality-5D score, were found to be also statistically different, even one year after surgery. This study also demonstrated a correlation between patients’ muscular damage and their clinical outcome. Conclusions. Cortical bone trajectory screws would provide similar outcomes compared to pedicle screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion at one year after surgery, and this technique represents a reasonable alternative to pedicle screws.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases

1999 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siviero Agazzi ◽  
Alain Reverdin ◽  
Daniel May
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors conducted a retrospective study to provide an independent evaluation of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in which impacted carbon cages were used. Interbody cages have been developed to replace tricortical interbody grafts in anterior and PLIF procedures. Superior fusion rates and clinical outcomes have been claimed by the developers. Methods. In a retrospective study, the authors evaluated 71 consecutive patients in whom surgery was performed between 1995 and 1997. The median follow-up period was 28 months. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Prolo scale. Fusion results were interpreted by an independent radiologist. The fusion rate was 90%. Overall, 67% of the patients were satisfied with their outcome and would undergo the same operation again. Based on the results of the Prolo scale, however, in only 39% of the patients were excellent or good results achieved. Forty-six percent of the work-eligible patients resumed their working activity. Clinical outcome and return-to-work status were significantly associated with socioeconomic factors such as preoperative employment (p = 0.03), compensation issues (p = 0.001), and length of preoperative sick leave (p = 0.01). Radiographically demonstrated fusion was not statistically related to clinical outcome (p = 0.2). Conclusions. This is one of the largest independent series in which PLIF with cages has been evaluated. The results show that the procedure is safe and effective with a 90% fusion rate and a 66% overall satisfaction rate, which compare favorably with those of traditional fixation techniques but fail to match the higher results claimed by the innovators of the cage techniques. The authors' experience confirms the reports of others that many patients continue to experience incapacitating back pain despite successful fusion and neurological recovery.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery: review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhupal Chitnavis ◽  
Giuseppe Barbagallo ◽  
Richard Selway ◽  
Ronan Dardis ◽  
Ahmed Hussain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Carbon Fiber ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors undertook a study to assess the value of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in which carbon fiber cages (CFCs) were placed in patients undergoing revision disc surgery for symptoms suggesting neural compression with low-back pain. Methods. The authors followed their first 50 patients for a maximum of 5 years and a minimum of 6 months after implantation of the CFCs. Patients in whom magnetic resonance (MR) imaging demonstrated “simple” recurrent herniation did not undergo PLIF. Surgery was performed in patients with symptoms of neural root compression, tension signs, and back pain with focal disc degeneration and nerve root distortion depicted on MR imaging compatible with clinical signs and symptoms. In 40 patients (80%) pedicle screws were not used. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Prolo Functional Economic Outcome Rating scale. Fusion outcome was assessed using an established classification. Symptoms in 46 patients (92%) improved after surgery, and given their outcomes, 45 (90%) would have undergone the same surgery again. Two thirds of patients experienced good or excellent outcomes (Prolo score ≥ 8) at early and late follow up. There was no difference in clinical outcome between those in whom pedicle screws were and were not implanted (p = 0.83, Mann—Whitney U-test). The fusion rate at 2 years postsurgery was 95%. There were minimal complications, and no patients fared worse after surgery. No patient has undergone additional surgical treratment of the fused intervertebral space. Conclusions. In this difficult group of patients the aim remains to improve symptoms but not cure the disease. A high fusion rate is possible when using the CFCs. Clinical success depends on selecting patients in whom radiological and clinical criteria accord. Pedicle screws are not necessary if facet joints are preserved, and high fusion rates and clinical success are possible without them.

Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Kenji Ohzono ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
The Mean

Object A systematic review concerning surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) showed that a satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with adjunctive spinal fusion than with decompression alone. However, the role of adjunctive fusion and the optimal type of fusion remain controversial. Therefore, operative management for multilevel DS raises more complicated issues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to elucidate clinical and radiological outcomes after 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS with the least bias in determination of operative procedure. Methods Since 2005, all patients surgically treated for lumbar DS at the authors' hospital have been treated using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screws, irrespective of severity of slippage, patient age, or bone quality. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 20 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS and had been followed up for 2 years or longer (2-level PLIF group). They also analyzed data from 92 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent single-level PLIF for single-level DS during the same time period and had been followed for at least 2 years (1-level PLIF group). This second group served as a control. Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Fusion status and sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine were assessed by comparing serial plain radiographs. Surgery-related complications and the need for additional surgery were evaluated. Results The mean JOA score improved significantly from 12.8 points before surgery to 20.4 points at the latest follow-up in the 2-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 51.8%), and from 14.2 points preoperatively to 22.5 points at the latest follow-up in the single-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 55.3%). At the final follow-up, 95.0% of patients in the 2-level PLIF group and 96.7% of those in the 1-level PLIF group had achieved solid spinal fusion, and the mean sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine was more lordotic than before surgery in both groups. Early surgery-related complications, including transient neurological complications, occurred in 6 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (30.0%) and 11 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (12.0%). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was found in 4 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (20.0%) and 10 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (10.9%). Conclusions The clinical outcome of 2-level PLIF for 2-level lumbar DS was satisfactory, although surgery-related complications including symptomatic adjacent-segment disease were not negligible.

Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5–S1 Level: Technical Considerations and Feasibility

2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (05) ◽  
pp. 507-512
Author(s):  
Denis Kaech ◽  
Pawel Baranowski ◽  
Alicja Baranowska ◽  
Didier Recoules-Arche ◽  
Arthur Kurzbuch
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Intervertebral Disk ◽  
Spinal Diseases ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Postoperative Result ◽  
Disk Space ◽  
Intervertebral Disk Space

Background Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF) surgery is a muscle-sparing approach that allows the treatment of various degenerative spinal diseases. It is technical challenging to perform the ELIF approach at the L5–S1 level because the sacral ala obstructs the view of the intervertebral disk space. Methods We reported earlier on the ELIF technique in which the intervertebral disk is targeted at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the midline. In this article we describe the technical process we developed to overcome the anatomic relation between the sacral ala and the intervertebral disk space L5–S1 that hinders the ELIF approach at this level. We then report in a retrospective analysis on the short-term clinical and radiologic outcome of 100 consecutive patients with degenerative L5–S1 pathologies who underwent ELIF surgery. Results The L5–S1 ELIF approach could be realized in all patients. The short-term clinical outcome was evaluated 5 months after surgery: 92% of the patients were satisfied with their postoperative result; 8% had a poor result. Overall, 17% of the patients presented light radicular or low back pain not influencing their daily activity, and 82% of the patients working before surgery returned to work 3 to 7 months after surgery. The radiologic outcome was documented by computed tomography at 5 months after surgery and showed fusion in 99% of the patients. Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging performed in 5 patients at 6 months after surgery revealed the integrity of the paraspinal muscles. Conclusions ELIF surgery at the L5–S1 level is technically feasible for various degenerative spinal diseases. Analysis of the clinical and radiologic data in a consecutive retrospective cohort of patients who underwent this surgical procedure showed a good short-term clinical outcome and fusion rate.

scholarly journals Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Masayoshi Fukushima ◽  
Nozomu Ohtomo ◽  
Michita Noma ◽  
Yudai Kumanomido ◽  
Hiroyuki Nakarai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Disease ◽  
Radiographic Findings ◽  
One Year

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.

Cross-Sectional Area of the Lumbar Spine Trunk Muscle and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Rate

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. E798-E803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Man Kyu Choi ◽  
Sung Bum Kim ◽  
Chang Kyu Park ◽  
Hridayesh P. Malla ◽  
Sung Min Kim
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Trunk Muscle ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document