scholarly journals Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiko Hiyama ◽  
Hiroyuki Katoh ◽  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Masato Sato ◽  
Masahiro Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Position Change ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Decompression

Abstract Background: There have been few comparisons between dual positions, which require a position change, and a single position, which does not require position change, and it is not clear whether there is a difference in indirect decompression achieved by the two procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in two cohorts of patients who underwent surgery in a single position or dual position. Methods: This study involved 45 patients who underwent indirect decompression at 68 levels, with LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal canal stenosis. Patient demographics and perioperative data were compared between two groups: patients who remained in the lateral decubitus position for pedicle screw fixation (SP group) and those turned to the prone position (DP group). Results: A total of 26 DP and 19 SP patients were analyzed. The operation time was approximately 31 min longer for the DP group (129.7 ± 36.0 min) than for the SP group (98.4 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.01). We also evaluated the pre- and postoperative image measurements, there was no significant difference for lumbar lordosis, segmental disc angle, slipping length, and disc height between the groups. The CSA of the dural sac (DP group, from 55.3 to 78.4 mm2; SP group, from 54.7 to 77.2 mm2) and central canal diameter (DP group, from 5.9 to 7.9 mm; SP group, from 5.6 to 7.7 mm) was significantly larger after surgery in both groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.684). Conclusions: SP surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 31 min. We found that the effect of indirect decompression by SP-PPS fixation following LLIF was considered to be a useful technique with no difference in dural sac enlargement or disc angle obtained compared with DP-PPS fixation.

scholarly journals Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiko Hiyama ◽  
Hiroyuki Katoh ◽  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Masato Sato ◽  
Masahiro Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Position Change ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Decompression

Abstract Background There have been few comparisons between dual positions, which require a position change, and a single position, which does not require position change, and it is not clear whether there is a difference in indirect decompression achieved by the two procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in two cohorts of patients who underwent surgery in a single position or dual position. Methods This study involved 45 patients who underwent indirect decompression at 68 levels, with LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal canal stenosis. Patient demographics and perioperative data were compared between two groups: patients who remained in the lateral decubitus position for pedicle screw fixation (SP group) and those turned to the prone position (DP group). Results A total of 26 DP and 19 SP patients were analyzed. The operation time was approximately 31 min longer for the DP group (129.7 ± 36.0 min) than for the SP group (98.4 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.01). We also evaluated the pre- and postoperative image measurements, there was no significant difference for lumbar lordosis, segmental disc angle, slipping length, and disc height between the groups. The CSA of the dural sac (DP group, from 55.3 to 78.4 mm2; SP group, from 54.7 to 77.2 mm2) and central canal diameter (DP group, from 5.9 to 7.9 mm; SP group, from 5.6 to 7.7 mm) was significantly larger after surgery in both groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.684). Conclusions SP surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 31 min. We found that the effect of indirect decompression by SP-PPS fixation following LLIF was considered to be a useful technique with no difference in dural sac enlargement or disc angle obtained compared with DP-PPS fixation.

scholarly journals Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiko Hiyama ◽  
Hiroyuki Katoh ◽  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Masato Sato ◽  
Masahiro Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Position Change ◽  
Dural Sac ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Decompression

Abstract Background: There have been few comparisons between dual positions, which require a position change, and a single position, which does not require position change, and it is not clear whether there is a difference in indirect decompression achieved by the two procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in two cohorts of patients who underwent surgery in a single position or dual position. Methods: This study involved 45 patients who underwent indirect decompression at 68 levels, with LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal canal stenosis. Patient demographics and perioperative data were compared between two groups: patients who remained in the lateral decubitus position for pedicle screw fixation (SP group) and those turned to the prone position (DP group). Results: A total of 26 DP and 19 SP patients were analyzed. We evaluated the pre- and postoperative image measurements, there was no significant difference for lumbar lordosis, segmental disc angle, slipping length, and disc height between the groups. The CSA of the dural sac and central canal diameter was significantly larger after surgery in both groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Conclusions: We found that the effect of indirect decompression by SP-PPS fixation following LLIF was considered to be a useful technique with no difference in dural sac enlargement or disc angle obtained compared with DP-PPS fixation.

scholarly journals Unilateral versus bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation associated with interbody fusion in degenerative Lumbar spine diseases

QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E E A Emara ◽  
S H Morad ◽  
A R Farghaly ◽  
O E Ahmed ◽  
M K Khalil
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Bilateral Group ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Lumbar interbody fusion is a recognized surgical technique in treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Interbody fusion supplemented with pedicle screw fixation has several advantages over posterolateral fusion and has been advocated to improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes. Interbody fusion places the bone graft in the loadbearing position of the anterior and middle spinal columns thereby enhancing the potential for fusion. In addition, the interbody space has more vascularity than the posterolateral space, also increasing the potential for a solid fusion mass to form. Aim of the Work to assess safety and efficacy of unilateral pedicle screw fixation associated with interbody fusion in Lumbar spine degenerative diseases and to evaluate and compare outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation associated with interbody fusion in lumbar spine degenerative diseases, as regard the operation time, bleeding, postoperative stay, cost, and the clinical and biomechanical results. Material & Methods This observational prospective comparative study of the 2 groups who were operated either unilateral (Group A /25 patients) or bilateral (Group B/25 patients) pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion was done. Patients were followed up for 1, 6, 12 months. This study occurred at Ain Shams University hospitals. Results No differences were observed between the two groups with respect to demographic data. The patients of the two groups had significant improvement in functional outcome compared to preoperatively, except in early postoperative VAS back and ODI in unilateral group which is better than bilateral group. However, no significant difference noticed in the further follow up. There was no significant difference comparing fusion rate, complication rate and duration of hospital stay between the two groups at postoperative follow-up. There was significantly less blood loss, shorter postoperative pain killer use and significantly shorter operation time in the unilateral PS fixation group as compared with the bilateral PS fixation group in our study. Conclusion Our study suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. Unilateral PS fixation may significantly reduce the intraoperative blood loss and shorten the operation time, somewhat improve the clinical outcome scores of ODI and VAS Back without significant difference comparing fusion rate, complication rate and duration of hospital stay between the two groups at postoperative follow-up. BPSF with TLIF likely causes more degeneration at the cranial adjacent segment compared with UPSF techniques. However, the long-term follow up is required to demonstrate the impact of these findings.

Comparison of Pedicle Screw Fixation With or Without Cement Augmentation Combined With Single-segment Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in Osteoporotic Spine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian-cheng Peng ◽  
Hui-zhi Guo ◽  
Chen-guang Zhan ◽  
Hua-sheng Huang ◽  
Yan-huai Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cement Leakage ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Screw Loosening ◽  
Single Segment ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract PurposeThis study aims to investigate the necessity of cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation in single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis.MethodFifty-nine cases were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-three cases were in the polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) group, and the other 26 cases were in the conventional pedicle screw (CPS) group. Evaluation data included operation time, intraoperative blood loss,hospitalization cost, hospitalization days, rates of fusion, screw loosening, bone cement leakage, visual analog scores (VAS) , Oswestry disability index (ODI) , Lumbar Lordosis（LL）, Pelvic Tilt（PT） and Sacral Slope（SS）. ResultsThe operation time and blood loss in the CPS group decreased significantly compared to the PMMA-PS group (P < 0.05). The average hospitalization cost of the PMMA group was significantly higher than that of the CPS group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference for the average hospital stay between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The initial and the last follow-up postoperative VAS and ODI improved significantly in the two groups (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI at each time point between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The last postoperative spine-pelvic parameters were significantly improved compared with preoperation (P < 0.05). In the PMMA-PS group, the fusion rate was 100%. The fusion rate was 96.15% in the CPS group. No significant difference was found between the two groups for the fusion rate (P > 0.05). Nine cases in the PMMA-PS group had bone cement leakage (27.27%). There was not screw loosening in the PMMA-PS group. There were 2 cases of screw loosening in the CPS group. There were no significant differences in screw loosening, postoperative adjacent segment fractures, postoperative infection or postoperative revision between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). ConclusionsThe use of PMMA-PS on a regular basis is not recommended for posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis.

scholarly journals Comparison of C2-3 Pedicle Screw Fixation With C2 Spinous Muscle Complex and Iliac Bone Graft for Instable Hangman Fracture

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dingli Xu ◽  
Kaifeng Gan ◽  
Yang Wang ◽  
Yulong Wang ◽  
Weihu Ma
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Iliac Bone ◽  
Iliac Bone Graft ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Muscle Complex ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: To compare the effect between C2 spinous muscle complex graft and iliac bone graft in C2-3 pedicle screw fixation for instable Hangman fracture. Using axial spinous muscle complex instead of iliac bone for instable Hangman fracture can decrease neck pain, bone donor site complication, and operation time.Method: The outcomes of C2-3 pedicle screw fixation with C2 spinous muscle complex were compared with iliac bone graft in 18 and 21 patients with instable Hangman fracture. The mean age was 49.1 ± 15.8 years in the complex group and 55.3 ± 12.2 years in the Iliac group, and the mean time to surgery of the patients was 3.3 ± 0.6 days in the complex group and 3.6 ± 0.9 days in the iliac group. Outcome measures including operation time, blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Japanese orthopedic association score (JOA), American spine injure association classification (ASIA), and bone fusion time were collected from medical records. In addition, the postoperative complications were also recorded.Results: There were significant differences in operation time and interoperative blood loss between the two groups (P &lt; 0.01). Also a significant difference was found in VAS score and JOA score between the two groups (P = 0.0012 and P &lt; 0.001, respectively) at 1-month follow-up, whereas, no significant difference was found at other visit time. In the final visit, all patients showed good bone fusion, and two patients shows incision edema and exudation in the iliac group.Conclusion: C2-3 pedicle screw fixation with C2 spinous muscle complex graft maybe a feasible and safe procedure for instable Hangman fracture.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive oblique interbody fusion for correction of iatrogenic lumbar deformity

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. V3
Author(s):  
Christopher Wilkerson ◽  
Vance Mortimer ◽  
Andrew T. Dailey ◽  
Marcus D. Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Spinal Instability ◽  
Revision Operation ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
Segmental Lordosis ◽  
Invasive Techniques

Spinal instability may arise as a consequence of decompressive lumbar surgery. An oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation can provide indirect decompression on neural elements, stabilization of mobile spondylolisthesis, and restoration of segmental lordosis. Minimally invasive techniques may facilitate a shorter hospitalization and faster recovery than a traditional open revision operation. The authors describe the use of an anterior interbody fusion via an oblique retroperitoneal approach and posterior pedicle screw fixation to treat a 67-year-old woman who developed L3–4 and L4–5 unstable spondylolisthesis after a lumbar laminectomy.The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/KWwGMIoDrmU.

IN VITRO STUDY OF BIOMECHANICAL BEHAVIOROF ANTERIORAND TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBARINTERBODY INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES

Neurosurgery ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1271-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas K. Niemeyer ◽  
Marco Koriller ◽  
Lutz Claes ◽  
Annette Kettler ◽  
Kathrin Werner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Biomechanical Behavior ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract OBJECTIVE To study the biomechanical behavior of lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques using titanium cages as either transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), with and without posterior pedicle fixation. METHODS Six fresh-frozen lumbar spines (L1–L5) were loaded with pure moments of ±7.5 Nm in unconstrained flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Specimen were tested intact, after implantation of an ALIF or TLIF cage “stand-alone” in L2–L3 or L3–L4, and after additional posterior pedicle screw fixation. RESULTS In all loading directions, the range of motion (ROM) of the segments instrumented with cage and pedicle screw fixation was below the ROM of the intact lumbar specimen for both instrumentation techniques. A significant difference was found between the TLIF cage and the ALIF cage with posterior pedicle screw fixation for the ROM in flexion-extension and axial rotation (P&lt; 0.05). Without pedicle screw fixation, the TLIF cage showed a significantly increased ROM and neutral zone compared with an ALIF cage “stand-alone” in two of the three loading directions (P&lt; 0.05). CONCLUSION With pedicle screw fixation, the ALIF cage provides a higher segmental stability than the TLIF cage in flexion-extension and axial rotation, but the absolute biomechanical differences are minor. The different cage design and approach show only minor differences of segmental stability when combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document