Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2010.47.5.352

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Stand-Alone Interbody Cage in Treatment of Lumbar Intervertebral Foraminal Stenosis : Comparative Study of Two Different Types of Cages  

Cho, Chul-Bum (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
Ryu, Kyeong-Sik (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
Park, Chun-Kun (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society / v.47, no.5, 2010 , pp. 352-357 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective : This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using two different stand-alone cages in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis (IFS). Methods : A total of 28 patients who underwent ALIF at L5-S1 using stand-alone cage were studied [Stabilis$^{(R)}$ (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA); 13, SynFix-LR$^{(R)}$ (Synthes Bettlach, Switzerland); 15]. Mean follow-up period was 27.3 ${\pm}$ 4.9 months. Visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Radiologically, the change of disc height, intervertebral foraminal (IVF) height and width at the operated segment were measured, and fusion status was defined. Results : Final mean VAS (back and leg) and ODI scores were significantly decreased from preoperative values (5.6 ${\pm}$ 2.3 ${\rightarrow}$ 2.3 ${\pm}$ 2.2, 6.3 ${\pm}$ 3.2 ${\rightarrow}$1.6 ${\pm}$ 1.6, and 53.7 ${\pm}$ 18.6 ${\rightarrow}$ 28.3 ${\pm}$ 13.1, respectively), which were not different between the two devices groups. In Stabilis$^{(R)}$ group, postoperative immediately increased disc and IVF heights (10.09 ${\pm}$ 4.15 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 14.99 ${\pm}$ 1.73 mm, 13.00 ${\pm}$ 2.44 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 16.28 ${\pm}$ 2.23 mm, respectively) were gradually decreased, and finally returned to preoperative value (11.29 ${\pm}$ 1.67 mm, 13.59 ${\pm}$ 2.01 mm, respectively). In SynFix-LR$^{(R)}$ group, immediately increased disc and IVF heights (9.60 ${\pm}$ 2.82 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 15.61 ${\pm}$ 0.62 mm, 14.01 ${\pm}$ 2.53 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 21.27 ${\pm}$ 1.93 mm, respectively) were maintained until the last follow up (13.72 ${\pm}$ 1.21 mm, 17.87 ${\pm}$ 2.02 mm, respectively). The changes of IVF width of each group was minimal pre- and postoperatively. Solid arthrodesis was observed in 11 patients in Stabilis group (11/13, 84.6%) and 13 in SynFix-LR$^{(R)}$ group (13/15, 86.7%). Conclusion : ALIF using stand-alone cage could assure good clinical results in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar IFS in the mid-term follow up. A degree of subsidence at the operated segment was different depending on the device type, which was higher in Stabilis$^{(R)}$ group.
Keywords
Anterior approach; Lumbar interbody fusion; Lumbar foraminal stenosis; Stand-alone cage;
Citations & Related Records

Times Cited By Web Of Science : 1  (Related Records In Web of Science)
Times Cited By SCOPUS : 2
연도 인용수 순위
1 Pellise F, Puig O, Rivas A, Bagg J, Villanueva C : Low fusion rate after L5-S1 laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion using twin stand-alone carbon fiber cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 : 1665- 1669, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Vamvanij V, Ferrara LA, Hai Y, Zhao J, Kolata R, Yuan HA : Quantitative changes in spinal canal dimensions using interbody distraction for spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26 : E13-E18, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Zdeblick TA, David SM : A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4-L5 fusion : laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25 : 2682-2687, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Oxland TR, Hoffer Z, Nydegger T, Rathonyi GC, Nolte LP : A comparative biomechanical investigation of anterior lumbar interbody cages : central and bilateral approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82 : 383-393, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB, Wang JC : Single-level lumbar spine fusion : a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 15 : 355-361, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Schleicher P, Gerlach R, Schár B, Cain CM, Achatz W, Pflugmacher R, et al. : Biomechanical comparison of two different concepts for stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 17 : 1757- 1765, 2008   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Shiraishi T, Crock HV : Re-exploration of the lumbar spine following simple discectomy : a review of 23 cases. Eur Spine J 4 : 84-87, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Madan SS, Boeree NR : Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 12 : 567-575, 2003   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Tsantrizos A, Andreou A, Aebi M, Steffen T : Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. Eur Spine J 9 : 14-22, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Luczkiewicz P, Smoczynski A, Smoczynski M, Pankowski R, Piotrowski M : [The results of decompression and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with the use of interbody cages for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.] Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 71 : 173-175, 2006
11 Mayer HM : A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22 : 691- 699; discussion 700, 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Mayer HM, Wiechert K : Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement. Neurosurgery 51 : S159-S165, 2002
13 Min JH, Jang JS, Jung B, Lee HY, Choi WC, Shim CS, et al. : The clinical characteristics and risk factors for the adjacent segment degeneration in instrumented lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 21 : 305-309, 2008   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Min JH, Jang JS, Lee SH : Comparison of anterior- and posteriorapproach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 7 : 21-26, 2007   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L : Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg 92 : 87-92, 2000
16 Inaoka M, Tada K, Yonenobu K : Problems of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the rheumatoid spondylitis of the lumbar spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 122 : 73-79, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Infusa A, An HS, Glover JM, McGrady L, Lim TH, Riley LH 3rd : The ideal amount of lumbar foraminal distraction for pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 2218-2223, 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Jang JS, Lee SH, Lim SR : Guide device for percutaneous placement of translaminar facet screws after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Technical note. J Neurosurg 98 : 100-103, 2003
19 Lubbers T, Bentlage C, Sandvoss G : [Anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a treatment for chronic refractory lower back pain in disc degeneration and spondylolisthesis using carbon cages - stand alone]. Zentralbl Neurochir 63 : 12-17, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Luczkiewicz P, Smoczy´nski A, Smoczynski M, Lorczynski A, Piotrowski M : [The long-term results of decompression and anterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.] Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 69 : 173-177, 2004
21 Crandall DG, Revella J : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion as an adjunct to posterior instrumented correction of degenerative lumbar scoliosis : three year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 : 2126-2133, 2009   DOI   ScienceOn
22 El Masry MA, Badawy WS, Rajendran P, Chan D : Combined anterior interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease. Int Orthop 28 : 294-297, 2004   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Gazzeri R, Tamorri M, Galarza M, Faiola A, Gazzeri G : Balloonassisted endoscopic retroperitoneal gasless approach (BERG) for lumbar interbody fusion : is it a valid alternative to the laparoscopic approach? Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50 : 150-154, 2007   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Gerber M, Crawford NR, Chamberlain RH, Fifield MS, LeHuec JC, Dickman CA : Biomechanical assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior lumbosacral fixation screw-plate : comparison to stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in an unstable human cadaver model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 : 762-768, 2006   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Commarmond J : [One-segment interbody lumbar arthrodesis using impacted cages : posterior unilateral approach versus posterior bilateral approach]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87 : 129-134, 2001
26 Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L : Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14 : 533-540, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Beaubien BP, Mehbod AA, Kallemeier PM, Lew WD, Buttermann GR, Transfeldt EE, et al. : Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion : minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro. Spine 29 : E406-E412, 2004   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Cain CM, Schleicher P, Gerlach R, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M, Kandziora F : A new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion device : biomechanical comparison with established fixation techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : 2631-2636, 2005   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Chen SH, Tai CL, Lin CY, Hsieh PH, Chen WP : Biomechanical comparison of a new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with established fixation techniques - a three-dimensional finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9 : 88, 2008   DOI
30 Christensen FB : Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 75 : 2-43, 2004   DOI