scholarly journals Clinico-Radiological Evaluation of Unilateral Single Cage filled with Local Morselized Bone Graft in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) for Degenerative Lumbar Disc: Retrospective Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. s-0036-1583097-s-0036-1583097
Author(s):  
Suresh Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radiological Evaluation ◽  
Single Cage

scholarly journals A comparative study between local bone graft with or without cages in unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Jiang He ◽  
Jun-fei Feng ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Qing-song Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Local Bone ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cage Group

Abstract Objective A retrospective study of the clinical and radiological results between local bone graft with a cage and without cage in patients treated with unilateral fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Methods A total of 52 patients who underwent PLIF in our institution were evaluated from January 2015 to January 2018. 30 of these patients received PLIF with local bone graft combined with using one cage, and 22 patients received PLIF with local bone graft without using cage. The clinical data and perioperative complications of the two groups were recorded. X-ray were taken before, after operation and at the end of follow-up to calculate the height of intervertebral disc and the fusion rate. SUK's criteria were used to evaluate the quality of spinal fusion at the follow-up time. The results between the cage and non- cage group were compared. Results There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups, and The mean follow-up time was 18.43 months in cage group and 17.50 months in non- cage group (P = 0.553). In additions, the significant difference was not found in the comparison of perioperative evaluation data between the two groups, such as operation time (P = 0.299), blood loss (P = 0.342) and incidence of complications (P = 1.000). Furthermore, the significant difference of VAS score cannot be found in preoperation (Pleg=0.731, Plowback=0.786), postoperation (Pleg=0.534, Plowback=0.725) and the final follow-up (Pleg=0.654, Plowback=0.362) between the two groups. The same results were also obtained in the comparison of ODI index (Ppre=0.682, Pfinal=0.712) and intervertebral height (Ppost=0.363, Pfinal=0.094). The final fusion rates were 96.7% (cage group) and 86.4% (non- cage group) respectively, and there was no statistical difference (P = 0.553). Conclusion Local bone graft has the same advantages as a cage in unilateral PLIF. Comparing with local bone graft using cage, we believe that the local bone graft is a more ideal way in unilateral PLIF, and decrease operation cost.

scholarly journals Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1424-1429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liqiang Li ◽  
Yueju Liu ◽  
Peng Zhang ◽  
Tao Lei ◽  
Jie Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Surgical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neurological Status ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

Objective To compare posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spinal fusion in patients previously treated by discectomy. Methods This retrospective study evaluated pre- and postoperative neurological status via Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Surgical outcome was based on recovery rate percentage (RR%). Adverse event data were reviewed. Results Both PLIF ( n = 26) and TLIF ( n = 25) significantly improved neurological status. There were no significant between-group differences in postoperative JOA score, RR% or surgical outcome. Overall, 92.3% patients in the PLIF group and 84% in the TLIF group had an excellent or good outcome (RR ≥ 65%). No patient had a poor outcome (RR < 50%). There were six cases of dural tear in the PLIF group and two in the TLIF group. Conclusions PLIF and TLIF provided good outcomes for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. TLIF may be preferred because of its shorter operative time and fewer procedure-related complications than PLIF.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document