Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral cages with respect to clinical outcomes and stability in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Neurosurgery

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 109-113

  Lee, Ji Ho ^a   Lee, Jae Hyup ^a   Yoon, Kang Sup ^a   Kang, Seung Baik ^a   Jo, Chris H ^a  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Blood loss; Clinical outcomes; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; Radiological results; Transfusion amounts; Unilateral cage

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK HERNIA; LORDOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; PEDICLE SCREW; POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCOLIOSIS; SPINE SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; X RAY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERNAL FIXATOR; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; STANDARD;

ADULT; AGED; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 58749083731     PISSN: 0148396X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000335077.62599.F0     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Acaroglu E, Acosta FL Jr, Ames C P, Chi J, Iyengar J, Muiru W, Puttlitz CM: Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and trans-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels. Spine 30: E562-E566, 2005.
2. Bagby GW: Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 11:931-934, 1988.
3. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD: A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine 18:2106-2107, 1993.
4. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD Lewis ML, Quinn KM, Persenaire JM: Lumbar inter-body fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior 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.
5. Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA O'Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C: The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthe-sis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6:461-472, 1993.
6. Chen HH, Cheung HH, Wang WK, Li A, Li KC: Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine 30:E92-E96, 2005.
7. Closkey RF, Parsons JR, Lee CK, Blacksin MF, Zimmerman MC: Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 18:1011-1015, 1993. 7a. Cobb JR: Outline for the study of scoliosis. Am Acad Orthop Surg Instruct Lect 5:261-275, 1948. 7b. Feise RJ, Menke JM: Functional rating index. A new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26:78-87, 2001.
8. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurtz LT: 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. 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.
9. Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW: Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:60-65, 2007.
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 Am 73:802-808, 1991.
11. Kettler A, Schmoelz W, Kast E, Gottwald M, Claes L, Wilke HJ: In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar inter-body fusion cages. Spine 30:E665-E670, 2005.
12. Kim KS, Yang TK, Lee JC: Radiological changes in the bone fusion site after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using carbon cages impacted with laminar bone chips: Follow-up study over more than 4 years. Spine 30:655-660, 2005.
13. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD: Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar inter-body fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 394:64-72, 2002.
14. Molinari RW, Sloboda J, Johnstone FL: Are 2 cages needed with instrumented PLIF? A comparison of 1 versus 2 interbody cages in a military population. Am J Orthop 32:337-343, 2003.
15. Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:99-102, 1988.
16. Vaccaro AR, Patel T, Fischgrund J, Anderson DG, Truumees E, Herkowitz HN, Phillips F, Hilibrand A, Albert TJ, Wetzel T, McCulloch JA: A pilot study evaluating the safety and efficacy of OP-1 Putty (rhBMP-7) as a replacement for iliac crest autograft in posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 29:1885-1892, 2004.
17. Wang JC, Mummaneni PV, Haid RW: Current treatment strategies for the painful lumbar motion segment: Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion. Spine 30:S33-S43, 2005.
18. Weatherley CR, Prickett CF, O'Brien JP: Discogenic pain persisting despite solid posterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 68:142-143, 1986.
19. Zhao J, Wang X, Hou T, He S: One versus two BAK fusion cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion to L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: A randomized, controlled prospective study in 25 patients with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine 27:2753-2757, 2002.