Comparative study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by strut laminar autograft versus cage in degenerative lumbar spine diseases

Ayman A A Samad, Emad G. K. EL-BANNA, Tarek M Makhlouf, Ahmed G Mostafa
{"title":"Comparative study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by strut laminar autograft versus cage in degenerative lumbar spine diseases","authors":"Ayman A A Samad, Emad G. K. EL-BANNA, Tarek M Makhlouf, Ahmed G Mostafa","doi":"10.4103/eoj.eoj_138_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Degenerative spondylolisthesis and lumbar disk degeneration are common degenerative diseases of the spine that may lead to lower back pain and radicular leg pain. The perfect surgical treatment remains a point of debate; interbody fusion has been recognized as having a ‘golden role’ in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but spinal interbody fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage surgery often incurs numerous complications such as cage retropulsion, nonunion, and high cost. We hypothesize that the autologous strut laminar graft will show clinical and radiological results similar to those obtained using a PEEK cage.\n \n \n \n To compare the primary outcome (clinical pain relief) and the secondary outcome (radiological signs of union and rate of fusion) when using strut laminar graft versus PEEK cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) technique in the surgical management of degenerative lumbar diseases.\n \n \n \n Forty patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disk disease and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1 or 2 underwent PLIF surgery between November 2017 and December 2020. All patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the method of fusion (group A: laminar strut graft and group B: PEEK cage). Single-level PLIF was performed in all patients. Clinical, radiological, functional, and perioperative data were recorded and compared.\n \n \n \n The mean follow-up was 22 ± 6 months. Clinical improvement and radiological fusion were significantly documented in each group (P>0.05). However, no significant difference existed between the two groups regarding demographic, radiological, and functional outcomes.\n \n \n \n The results suggest that the laminar strut graft when used instead of the cage seems to be an equally safe and low-priced method of interbody fusion.\n","PeriodicalId":171084,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal","volume":"43 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/eoj.eoj_138_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Degenerative spondylolisthesis and lumbar disk degeneration are common degenerative diseases of the spine that may lead to lower back pain and radicular leg pain. The perfect surgical treatment remains a point of debate; interbody fusion has been recognized as having a ‘golden role’ in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but spinal interbody fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage surgery often incurs numerous complications such as cage retropulsion, nonunion, and high cost. We hypothesize that the autologous strut laminar graft will show clinical and radiological results similar to those obtained using a PEEK cage. To compare the primary outcome (clinical pain relief) and the secondary outcome (radiological signs of union and rate of fusion) when using strut laminar graft versus PEEK cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) technique in the surgical management of degenerative lumbar diseases. Forty patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disk disease and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1 or 2 underwent PLIF surgery between November 2017 and December 2020. All patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the method of fusion (group A: laminar strut graft and group B: PEEK cage). Single-level PLIF was performed in all patients. Clinical, radiological, functional, and perioperative data were recorded and compared. The mean follow-up was 22 ± 6 months. Clinical improvement and radiological fusion were significantly documented in each group (P>0.05). However, no significant difference existed between the two groups regarding demographic, radiological, and functional outcomes. The results suggest that the laminar strut graft when used instead of the cage seems to be an equally safe and low-priced method of interbody fusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在腰椎退行性疾病中使用支柱层状自体移植物与笼式后路腰椎椎间融合术的比较研究
退行性脊椎滑脱症和腰椎间盘变性是常见的脊椎退行性疾病,可导致下背痛和腿部根性疼痛。椎体间融合术被认为是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的 "黄金疗法",但使用聚醚醚酮(PEEK)椎体间融合器进行椎体间融合术往往会产生许多并发症,如椎体间融合器后移、不愈合和高昂的费用。我们假设,自体支柱层状移植物将显示出与使用 PEEK 保持架相似的临床和放射学效果。 目的:在腰椎退行性疾病的手术治疗中,比较在后路腰椎椎体间融合术(PLIF)中使用自体支柱板层移植与 PEEK 保持架的主要结果(临床疼痛缓解)和次要结果(结合的放射学征象和融合率)。 2017年11月至2020年12月期间,40名单水平腰椎间盘退行性疾病和/或退行性脊椎滑脱症1级或2级患者接受了PLIF手术。所有患者根据融合方法随机分为两组(A组:板层支柱移植,B组:PEEK骨架)。所有患者均进行了单层 PLIF。记录并比较了临床、放射学、功能和围手术期数据。 平均随访时间为 22±6 个月。各组患者的临床改善和放射学融合均有明显记录(P>0.05)。然而,两组在人口统计学、放射学和功能结果方面没有明显差异。 研究结果表明,用层状支柱移植代替椎间融合器似乎是一种同样安全且价格低廉的椎间融合方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are olecranon osteotomies preferred to triceps-elevating approaches in intraarticular distal humerus fractures? A literature review Comparative study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by strut laminar autograft versus cage in degenerative lumbar spine diseases Distal fibula locked plate versus nonlocked plate for treatment of Danis Weber type B fracture comparative prospective study Assessment of lateral malleolus weber C fractures’ outcomes in patients undergoing syndesmosis-only fixation versus syndesmosis and fibular fixation Anterior odontoid lag screw fixation in type II odontoid fractures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1