Outcomes after cervical vertebral interbody fusion using an interbody fusion device and polyaxial pedicle screw and rod construct in 10 horses (2015‐2019)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Pezzanite ◽  
Jeremiah T. Easley ◽  
Rosemary Bayless ◽  
Ellison Aldrich ◽  
Brad B. Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

scholarly journals Comparison of outcome in lumbar spine instability treated surgically with pedicle screw fixation with or without interbody fusion device (cage)

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 937
Author(s):  
Sandeep Kumar Mishra ◽  
Kushal Haresh Gori ◽  
Deepak C. E.
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Female Predominance ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Background: Lumbar spinal fusion was introduced approximately 70 years ago and has evolved as a treatment option for symptomatic spinal instability, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative scoliosis. Broader applications including use as a treatment of chronic low back pain and recurrent radiculopathy have resulted in a dramatic increase in the rates of lumbar fusion procedures within the last decade.Methods: A retrospective and prospective study to be carried out for 40 patients who were assigned in the following groups: Group 1 (n=20) consisted of patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw and bone graft, and Group 2 (n=20) consisted of patients treated by lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw and interbody cage.Results: Most of patients with lumbar spine instability were in 4th and 5th decade of life with average age of 46.75 yrs and female predominance with 26 (65%) cases.65% of Instability was found due to Spondylolisthesis. PLIF with Cage showed better scores than BG in terms of ODI, VAS, SF-36, Benzel’s modified Japanese scores at end of 1 year, which is statistically not significant.Conclusions: Lumbar spine instability is more common in 4th and 5th decade of life with female predominance, commonest level of instability being L4-L5 and commonest mode was Spondylolisthesis. PLIF with Cage is associated with greater operative time and lesser blood loss. Patients with PLIF + Cage had better neurological improvement, pain reduction, reduced disability, generalised well-being and satisfaction as evident by Modified Benzel’s Japanese scales, VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores respectively, which is statistically not significant. Addition of an interbody fusion device (Cage) helps in greater stability, lower implant failure, higher fusion rate and better functional outcome in patient treated with PLIF for lumbar spine instability.

scholarly journals Effectiveness comparison of Zero-profile interbody fusion implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device: a clinical and radiological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Xiangyu Tang ◽  
Wei Xiong ◽  
Hua Wu ◽  
Chaoxu Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Degenerative Changes ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Cage Group ◽  
Cervical Plate ◽  
Anterior Cervical Plate ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Abstract Purpose This study was to compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with a Zero-profile implant (Zero-P) and traditional plate and cage. Methods There were 68 patients received ACDF of single level, 35 patients with Zero-profile implant (Zero-p group) and 33 patients with traditional plate and cage (Cage group), from C3–C7 during 2014 to 2016. Collecting and analyzing of clinical and radiological data were performed. Patients were followed-up at least 1 year after surgery. The operation time, blood loss, Japan Department of Orthopedics Association (JOA) score, pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) score and dysphagia score were recorded. Additionally, changes in cervical lordosis, fusion rate and adjacent segment degeneration were analyzed as well. Results For neurologic outcomes, the JOA, VAS and NDI were statistically equivalent between the two groups (P>0.05). For radiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in the C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angle and incidence of subsidence at the final follow-up (P>0.05). No degenerative changes was found in the Zero-p group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed degeneration in adjacent segments (P<0.05). Also, the incidence of postoperative dysphagia is higher in Cage group than in Zero-p group at 3 months and 12 months (P<0.05). Conclusions Both Zero-profile implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies in this study. Considering the lower incidences of dysphagia and degenerative changes, the Zero-profile implant is a good succedaneum.

Distractive Properties of a Threaded Interbody Fusion Device

Spine ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 1201-1210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvinder S. Sandhu ◽  
Simon Turner ◽  
J. Michael Kabo ◽  
Linda E. A. Kanim ◽  
David Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Biomechanical evaluation of CIBOR spine interbody fusion device

2016 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 1157-1168
Author(s):  
Alexander C. M. Chong ◽  
Seth W. Harrer ◽  
Michael H. Heggeness ◽  
Paul H. Wooley
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Development of a Bioresorbable Interbody Fusion Device

2000 ◽  
pp. 215-222
Author(s):  
Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski ◽  
Joseph D. Gresser ◽  
Debra J. Trantolo ◽  
Georg Schollmeier ◽  
Frank Kandziora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

A New Stand-Alone Cervical Anterior Interbody Fusion Device

Spine ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Scholz ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Philipp Schleicher ◽  
Anna G. U. Sawa ◽  
Seungwon Baek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Anterior Interbody Fusion ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Use of Bone as an Interbody Fusion Device

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Rasmussen ◽  
Gregory R. Trost ◽  
Clifford Tribus
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Trabecular Metal™ Cervical Interbody Fusion Device Versus Bone Graft for One-Level Plated Anterior Cervical Fusion: A Prospective Study

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. S122-S123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Jensen ◽  
Robert Peroutka ◽  
Mark Shaffrey ◽  
M. Mason Macenski ◽  
Jozef Murar
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Cervical Fusion ◽  
Cervical Fusion ◽  
Trabecular Metal ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

scholarly journals Effectiveness comparison of Zero-profile interbody fusion implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device: a clinical and radiological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Xiangyu Tang ◽  
Wei Xiong ◽  
Hua Wu ◽  
Chaoxu Liu(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Degenerative Changes ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Postoperative Dysphagia ◽  
Fusion Device ◽  
Cage Group ◽  
Cervical Plate ◽  
Anterior Cervical Plate ◽  
Interbody Fusion Device

Abstract Background Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a successful strategy to relieve the symptoms caused by cervical degenerative disease. Postoperative dysphagia is one complication of this kind of surgery. We performed this study to compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and complications of　ACDF with a Zero-profile implant (Zero-P) and titanium plate and cage.Methods There were 68 patients received ACDF of single level, 35 patients with Zero-profile implant (Zero-p group) and 33 patients with traditional plate and cage (Cage group), from C3–C7 during 2014 to 2016. Collecting and analyzing of clinical and radiological data were performed. Patients were followed-up at least 1 year after surgery. The operation time, blood loss, Japan Department of Orthopedics Association (JOA) score, pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) score and dysphagia score were recorded. Additionally, changes in cervical lordosis, fusion rate and adjacent segment degeneration were analyzed as well.Results For neurologic outcomes, the JOA, VAS and NDI were statistically equivalent between the two groups (P>0.05). For radiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in the C2-7 Cobb angles, segmental Cobb angle and incidence of subsidence at the final follow-up (P>0.05). No degenerative changes was found in the Zero-p group, whereas 5 patients in the Cage group developed degeneration in adjacent segments (P<0.05). Also, the incidence of postoperative dysphagia is higher in Cage group than in Zero-p group at 3 months and 12 months (P<0.05).Conclusions Both Zero-profile implant and anterior cervical plate interbody fusion device were demonstrated to be effective and safe strategies in this study. Considering the lower incidences of dysphagia and degenerative changes, the Zero-profile implant is a good succedaneum.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document