Dataset Information

Lumbar Spine Fusion Rates With Local Bone in Posterolateral and Combined Posterolateral and Interbody Approaches.

ABSTRACT: Posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) used to treat degenerative lumbar conditions still faces pseudarthrosis. Bone graft choice is a key factor; a traditional choice has been autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), but complication rates are quoted up to 39%. Local bone from laminectomy eliminates ICBG harvesting complications. Methods:Two hundred forty-one patients underwent either PLF or PLF with interbody at a single lumbar level with a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial only using local bone graft. Fusion was assessed with radiographs and CT. Results:PLF fused bilaterally in 18% and unilaterally in 28.8% at 6 months and 35.7% and 50.3% at 12 months, respectively. At 6-month PLF + interbody, 1.1% fused bilaterally and 11.7% unilaterally; at 12 months, 5.4% fused all three areas, and 50.8% fused at least one area. Discussion:Local bone fused substantially less than the "benchmark" ICBG.

SUBMITTER: Park DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6903817 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lumbar Spine Fusion Rates With Local Bone in Posterolateral and Combined Posterolateral and Interbody Approaches.

Park Daniel K DK Roberts Richard R Arnold Paul P Kim David H DH Sasso Rick R Baker Kevin C KC Fischgrund Jeffrey S JS

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews 20191104 11

Posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) used to treat degenerative lumbar conditions still faces pseudarthrosis. Bone graft choice is a key factor; a traditional choice has been autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), but complication rates are quoted up to 39%. Local bone from laminectomy eliminates ICBG harvesting complications.<h4>Methods</h4>Two hundred forty-one patients underwent either PLF or PLF with interbody at a single lumbar level with a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled t ...[more]

PMID: 31875201

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored "much better" in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. However, this fusion technique requires resection of inferior facet joint to provide access for superior facet joint resection, which results in reduced lumbar spinal stability and unnecessary trauma. We have previously developed extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF) that can avoid back muscle injury with direct nerve root decompression. This study aims to show that ELIF enhances lumbar spinal stability in comparison to TLIF by comparing lumbar spinal stability of L4-L5 range of motion (ROM) on 12 cadaveric spine specimens after performing TLIF or ELIF.Methods12 cadaveric spine specimens were randomly divided and treated in accordance with the different internal fixations, including ELIF with a unilateral pedicle screw (ELIF+UPS), TLIF with a unilateral pedicle screw (TLIF+UPS), TLIF with a bilateral pedicle screw (TLIF+BPS), ELIF with a unilateral pedicle screw and translaminar facet screw (ELIF+UPS+TLFS) and ELIF with a bilateral pedicle screw (ELIF+BPS). The treatment groups were exposed to a 400-N load and 6 N·m movement force to calculate the angular displacement of L4-L5 during anterior flexion, posterior extension, lateral flexion and rotation operation conditions.ResultsThe ROM in ELIF+UPS group was smaller than that of TLIF+UPS group under all operating conditions, with the significant differences in left lateral flexion and right rotation by 36.15% and 25.97% respectively. The ROM in ELIF+UPS group was higher than that in TLIF+BPS group. The ROM in the ELIF+UPS+TLFS group was much smaller than that in the ELIF+UPS group, but was not significantly different than that in the TLIF+BPS group.ConclusionsDespite that TLIF+BPS has great stability, which can be comparable by that of ELIF+UPS. Additionally, ELIF stability can be further improved by using translaminar facet screws without causing more tissue damage to patient.

Dataset Information

Lumbar Spine Fusion Rates With Local Bone in Posterolateral and Combined Posterolateral and Interbody Approaches.

Publications

Lumbar Spine Fusion Rates With Local Bone in Posterolateral and Combined Posterolateral and Interbody Approaches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets