scholarly journals Surgical site infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumentation in patients with lumbar degenerative disease

Author(s):  
Honglei Pei ◽  
Haiying Wang ◽  
Meiyun Chen ◽  
Lei Ma ◽  
Guobin Liu ◽  
...  
1999 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. E10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R. McLaughlin ◽  
Jonathan Y. Zhang ◽  
Brian R. Subach ◽  
Regis W. Haid ◽  
Gerald E. Rodts

In recent years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of patients undergoing treatment with interbody fusion devices for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. These devices can be placed either anteriorly or posteriorly. With the advent of minimally invasive surgery and the increasing ability of general surgeons to perform transperitoneal procedures laparoscopically, a new laparoscopic technique has been developed for placing lumbar interbody fusion devices. Although this procedure has some advantages over posterior lumbar interbody fusion, it is not without significant risk, and the learning curve is steep. The authors review a series of 32 consecutive patients who underwent single-level laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion at L4–5 or L5–S1 over a 2-year period for the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease. In this report they review the technical aspects of the procedure and the important lessons they have learned through their early experience with this technique.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Su Lee ◽  
Dong Ki Ahn ◽  
Byung Kwon Chang ◽  
Jae Il Lee

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 1562-1573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiting Wu ◽  
Qingjiang Pang ◽  
Guoqiang Jiang

Objective To compare the medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Fifty-seven patients with multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease underwent Dynesys stabilization (n = 26) or PLIF (n = 31) from December 2008 to February 2010. The mean follow-up period was 50.3 (range, 46–65) months. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiographic evaluations included disc height and range of motion (ROM) of the operative segments and proximal adjacent segment on lumbar flexion-extension X-rays. The intervertebral disc signal change was defined by magnetic resonance imaging, and disc degeneration was classified by the Pfirrmann grade. Results The clinical outcomes including the VAS score and ODI were significantly improved in both groups at 3 months and the final follow-up, but the difference between the two was not significant. At the final follow-up, the disc height of stabilized segments in both groups was significantly increased; the increase was more notable in the Dynesys than PLIF group. The ROM of stabilized segments at the final follow-up decreased from 6.20° to 2.76° and 6.56° to 0.00° in the Dynesys and PLIF groups, respectively. There was no distinct change in the height of the proximal adjacent segment in the two groups. The ROM of the proximal adjacent segment in both groups increased significantly at the final follow-up; the change was significantly greater in the PLIF than Dynesys group. Only one case of adjacent segment degeneration occurred in the PLIF group, and this patient underwent a second operation. Conclusions Both Dynesys stabilization and PLIF can improve the clinical and radiographic outcomes of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. Compared with PLIF, Dynesys stabilization can maintain the mobility of the stabilized segments with less influence on the proximal adjacent segment and may help to prevent the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration. Dynesys is reliable for the treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease at the medium-term follow-up.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document