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 The efficacy of porous hydroxyapatite bone chip as an extender of local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1324-1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyoungmin Kim ◽  
Choon-Ki Lee ◽  
Jin-Sup Yeom ◽  
Jae-Hyup Lee ◽  
Ki-Ho Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Porous Hydroxyapatite ◽  
Bone Chip ◽  
Local Bone

scholarly journals Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 1158-1163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenya Ito ◽  
Shiro Imagama ◽  
Tokumi Kanemura ◽  
Yudo Hachiya ◽  
Yasushi Miura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Iliac Bone ◽  
Bone Union ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Union Rate ◽  
Local Bone

scholarly journals A Prospective Randomized Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Cost utility from a Lower-middle-income Country Perspective and Review of Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (B) ◽  
pp. 636-645
Author(s):  
Nasser El-Ghandour ◽  
Mohamed Sawan ◽  
Atul Goel ◽  
Ahmed Assem Abdelkhalek ◽  
Ahmad M. Abdelmotleb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis have not been validated in many prospective randomized trials. AIM: We aimed to validate the safety and efficacy of TLIF and PLIF surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis using the clinical, radiographic, and cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: The data of surgically treated single-level spondylolisthesis patients were randomized prospectively into two groups. The groups were compared regarding demographics, perioperative complications, hospital stay, total expenditure, fusion rate, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication scale, and Odom’s criteria). A review of literature was done to compare the outcomes with the ones from higher-income nations. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent prospective randomization. The improvement in the clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up showed improvement in the TLIF group more than the PLIF group but with no significant difference. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the PLIF (p < 0.05), also, the blood loss was significantly less in the TLIF (p < 0.001). The complications frequency did not show any statistical significance between both groups and no significant difference in the patient’s post-operative patient satisfaction (p = 0.6). The mean hospital stay was non-significantly longer in the PLIF (p = 0.7). At 12-month follow-up, 93.3% of the TLIF patients were fused versus 86.7% of the PLIF (p = 0.5). The total cost of the TLIF was significantly less (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both PLIF and TLIF could achieve similar fusion rates and clinical satisfaction in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. The TLIF group was significantly better in terms of financial burden, operative time, and blood loss.

Is Local Bone Viable as a Source of Bone Graft in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

Spine ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 28 (20) ◽  
pp. 2386-2389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasushi Miura ◽  
Shiro Imagama ◽  
Masaki Yoda ◽  
Hideyuki Mitsuguchi ◽  
Hiroaki Kachi
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Local Bone

scholarly journals A comparative study of clinical and radiological outcome between cages and morselized bone graft in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a hospital-based study

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 492
Author(s):  
Amit Jain ◽  
Abhishek Chandra ◽  
Aakanksha Agarwal ◽  
Ramesh Chandra Meena ◽  
Mudit Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Diseases ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radiological Outcome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Clinical And Radiological Outcome

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Degenerative spinal diseases resulting in neuropathic backache are managed by nerve root decompression with instrumented interbody fusion is the treatment of choice for these groups of patients when not managed conservatively.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Hospital based, comparative, retrospective study was carried out in such patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with either cage with bone graft or stand-alone autologous morselized bone graft. The clinical and radiological outcomes were compared in these two methods of interbody fusion to assess any significant difference between them. A total of 20 patients with lumbar canal stenosis and degenerative grade 1/2 spondylolisthesis who failed conservative management were operated by TLIF approach and were evaluated for post-operative improvement in Oswestry disability index (ODI) and interbody fusion on imaging at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Vertebral level of surgical intervention, intra-operative blood loss and duration of surgery were recorded for each patient along with complications, if any.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> In our study there was no significant difference in the clinical and radiological outcome between the two methods of interbody fusion. Although the group which was offered morselized bone graft with cage showed slightly better clinical outcome at 6 months of follow up, both showed no significant difference in ODI at 1 year of follow up.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> With this study, we can conclude that both the methods have similar clinical and radiological outcome with similar patient satisfaction and can be interchangeably employed for interbody fusion according to surgeon’s and patient’s preferences.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document