Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

  • 제40권2호
  • /
  • Pages.84-89
  • /
  • 2006
  • /
  • 2005-3711(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-7876(eISSN)
대한신경외과학회 (The Korean Neurosurgical Society)
권호 표지

Clinical Comparison of Posterolateral Fusion with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Kim, Chang-Hyun (Department of Neurosurgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine) ;
  • Gill, Seung-Bae (Department of Neurosurgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Myeng-Hun (Department of Neurosurgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Yeun-Kyu (Department of Neurosurgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Su (Department of Anesthesiology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, Ulsan University College of Medicine)
  • 발행 : 2006.08.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective : The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of two methods for stabilization and fusion : Postero-Lateral Fusion [PLF, pedicle screw fixation with bone graft] and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion [PLIF, cage insertion] for spinal stenosis and recurred disc herniation except degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods : Seventy one patients who underwent PLF [n=36] or PLIF [n=35] between 1997 and 2001 were evaluated prospectively. These two groups were compared for the change of interbody space, the range of segmental angle, the angle of lumbar motion, and clinical outcomes by Prolo scale. Results : The mean follow-up period was 32.6 months. The PLIF group showed statistically significant increase of the interbody space after surgery. However, the difference in the change of interbody space between two groups was insignificant [P value=0.05]. The range of segmental angle was better in the PLIF group, but the difference in the change of segmental angle was not statistically significant [P value=0.0l7]. Angle of lumbar motion was similar in the two groups. Changes of Prolo economic scale were not statistically significant [P value=0.193]. The PLIF group showed statistically significant improvement in Prolo functional scale [P value=0.003]. In Prolo economic and functional scale, there were statistically significant relationships between follow-up duration [P value<0.001]. change of interbody space [P value<0.001], and range of segmental angle [P value<0.001]. Conclusion : Results of this study indicate that PLIF is superior to PLF in interbody space augmentation and clinical outcomes by Prolo functional scale. Analysis of clinical outcomes showed significant relationships among various factors [fusion type, follow-up duration, change of interbody space, and range of segmental angle]. Therefore, the authors recommend instrumented PLIF to offer better clinical outcomes in patients who needed instrumented lumbar fusion for spinal stenosis and recurred disc herniation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bjarke CF, Stender HE, Laursen M : Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion : randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine 27 : 1269-1277, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206150-00006
  2. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD : A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine 18 : 2106-2117, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030
  3. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML : Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posteior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system : two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 25 : 1437-1446, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200006010-00017
  4. Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O'Brien MF : The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatement of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Discor 6 : 461-472, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-199306060-00001
  5. Choi YJ, Lee MS, Kim DH : Clinical radiological analysis of operative result of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 25 : 2262-2270, 1996
  6. Dupuis PR, Young-Hing K, Cassidy JD, Kirkaldyo-Willis WH : Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability. Spine 10 : 262-276, 1985 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198504000-00015
  7. Farfan HF : Mechanical disorders of the low back. Philadelphia : Lee and Febiger, 1973, pp33-40
  8. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN : Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis : a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 22 : 2807-2812, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003
  9. Harvey CJ, Richenberg JL, Saifuddin A : The radiological investigation of lumbar spondylolysis. Clin Radiol 53 : 723-728, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(98)80313-9
  10. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT : Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 73 Am : 802-808, 1991 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199173060-00002
  11. Jin BH, Kim YS, Zhang HY, Cho YE : Clinical results of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with BAK cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 28 : 809-816, 1999
  12. Kim YS, Chin DK, Yoon DH, Cho YE, Jin BH : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with threaded fusion cage : long-term follow-up results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 28 : 1765-1773, 1999
  13. Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Griffith SL : The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective multicenter trial. Spine 23 : 1267-1279, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199806010-00019
  14. Madan S, Boeree NR : Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 27 : 1536-1542, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200207150-00011
  15. Peter F, Olle H, Per W, Anders N : Chronic low back pain and fusion : A comparison of three surgical techniques. Spine 27 : 1131-1141, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002
  16. Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M : Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. Praradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 11 : 601-606, 1986 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198607000-00012
  17. Ray CD : Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 22 : 667-679, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199703150-00019
  18. Rens TJ, Horn JR : Long-term results in lumbosacral interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Acta Orthop Scand 53 : 378-379, 1982
  19. Sait N, Metin M, Feridun A, Dinc O, Tansu M, Nuri A : Factors affecting reduction in low-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 99 : 151-156, 2003 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2003.99.2.0151
  20. Schwab FJ, Nazarian DG, Mahmud F : Effects of spinal instrumentation on fusion of the lumbosacral spine. Spine 20 : 2023-2028, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199509150-00014
  21. Siviero A, Alain R, Daniel M : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages : an dependent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg (Spine 2) 91 : 186-192, 1999 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.1999.91.2.0186
  22. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ : Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22 : 210-219, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199701150-00016
  23. Thomasen K : 312 patients followed for 2-20 years. Acta Orthop Scand 56 : 287-293, 1985 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678508993016
  24. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP : Effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion : prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine 22 : 2813-2822, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199712150-00004
  25. Wang JC, Mummaneni PV, Haid RW : Current treatment strategies for the painful lumbar motion segment : posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion. Spine 30 : S33-43, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000174559.13749.83
  26. Wang JM, Kim DJ, Yum YH : Posterior pedicular screw instrumentation and anterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar spondylosis or grade I spondylolisthesis with segmental instability. J Spinal Disord 9 : 83-88, 1996