Single-Level Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion of Lumbar Spine With β-Tricalcium Phosphate Versus Autograft

Spine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1299-1304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Yang Dai ◽  
Lei-Sheng Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Tricalcium Phosphate ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Single Level

Beta—tricalcium phosphate as a substitute for autograft in interbody fusion cages in the canine lumbar spine

2002 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashiro Ohyama ◽  
Yoshichika Kubo ◽  
Hiroo Iwata ◽  
Waro Taki
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Tricalcium Phosphate ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Posterolateral Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Spine Model ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Fine Print

Object. An interbody fusion cage has been introduced for cervical anterior interbody fusion. Autogenetic bone is packed into the cage to increase the rate of union between adjacent vertebral bodies. Thus, donor site—related complications can still occur. In this study a synthetic ceramic, β—tricalcium phosphate (TCP), was examined as a substitute for autograft bone in a canine lumbar spine model. Methods. In 12 dogs L-1 to L-4 vertebrae were exposed via a posterolateral approach, and discectomy and placement of interbody fusion cages were performed at two intervertebral disc spaces. One cage was filled with autograft (Group A) and the other with TCP (Group B). The lumbar spine was excised at 16 weeks postsurgery, and biomechanical, microradiographic, and histological examinations were performed. Both the microradiographic and histological examinations revealed that fusion occurred in five (41.7%) of 12 operations performed in Group A and in six (50%) of 12 operations performed in Group B. The mean percentage of trabecular bone area in the cages was 54.6% in Group A and 53.8% in Group B. There were no significant intergroup differences in functional unit stiffness. Conclusions. Good histological and biomechanical results were obtained for TCP-filled interbody fusion cages. The results were comparable with those obtained using autograft-filled cages, suggesting that there is no need to harvest iliac bone or to use allo- or xenografts to increase the interlocking strength between the cage and vertebral bone to achieve anterior cervical interbody fusion.

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.

scholarly journals Stenotic Changes of the Adjacent Lumbar Spine following Posterolateral Fusion In-situ

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-216
Author(s):  
Hideyuki Suwa ◽  
Junya Hanakita ◽  
Kazuhiko Shiokawa ◽  
Masaaki Saiki ◽  
Masashi Oda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion

Long-term outcome of fusion for degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1526-1533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Endler ◽  
Per Ekman ◽  
Ivan Berglund ◽  
Hans Möller ◽  
Paul Gerdhem
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Degenerative Disc Disease ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Degenerative Disc ◽  
Additional Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported

AimsChronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease is sometimes treated with fusion. We compared the outcome of three different fusion techniques in the Swedish Spine Register: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and interbody fusion (IBF).Patients and MethodsA total of 2874 patients who were operated on at one or two lumbar levels were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (3.6 to 19.1) for any additional lumbar spine surgery. Patient-reported outcome data were available preoperatively (n = 2874) and at one year (n = 2274), two years (n = 1958), and a mean of 6.9 years (n = 1518) postoperatively and consisted of global assessment and visual analogue scales of leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol five-dimensional index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and satisfaction with treatment. Statistical analyses were performed with competing-risks proportional hazards regression or analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline variables.ResultsThe number of patients with additional surgery were 32/183 (17%) in the PLF group, 229/1256 (18%) in the IPLF group, and 439/1435 (31%) in the IBF group. With the PLF group as a reference, the hazard ratio for additional lumbar surgery was 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.72) for the IPLF group and 2.13 (95% CI 1.45 to 3.12) for the IBF group. All patient-reported outcomes improved after surgery (p < 0.001) but were without statistically significant differences between the groups at the one-, two- and 6.9-year follow-ups (all p ≥ 0.12).ConclusionThe addition of interbody fusion to posterolateral fusion was associated with a higher risk for additional surgery and showed no advantages in patient-reported outcome Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1526–1533

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document