Evidence-based recommendations for Spine Surgery

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Fisher, Charles G ^a   Vaccaro, Alexander R ^b   Mulpuri, Kishore ^c   Angevine, Peter D ^d   Thomas, Kenneth C ^e   Patel, Alpesh A ^f   Prasad, Srinivas K ^b   Whang, Peter G ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Rothman Institute   (Canada)

^c BC CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BONE GRAFT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; FRACTURE HEALING; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR DISK HERNIA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PEDICLE SCREW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICULOPATHY; REVIEW; SCOLIOSIS; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINE FUSION; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; SPINE SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WORKMAN COMPENSATION;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; ORTHOPEDICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINE;

EID: 84655169819     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823dccc0     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Rainville J , Sobel JB , Harrigan C , et al. The effect of compensation involvement on the reporting of pain and disability by patients referred for rehabilitation of chronic low back pain. Spine 1997; 22; 2016-24. (Pubitemid 28069132)
2. Tong HC , William JC , Haig AJ , et al. Predicting outcomes of transforaminal epidural injections for sciatica. Spine J 2003; 3; 430-4 (Pubitemid 37337228)
3. Atlas SJ , Chang Y , Keller RB , et al. The impact of disability compensation on long-term treatment outcomes of patients with sciatica due to a lumbar disc herniation. Spine 2006; 31; 3061-9. (Pubitemid 46005897)
4. Franklin GM , Haug J , Heyer NJ , et al. Outcome of lumbar fusion in Washington state worker s compensation. Spine 1994; 19; 1897-904. (Pubitemid 24321316)
5. Ploumis A , Transfeldt EE , Denis F. Degenerative lumbar scoliosis associated with spinal stenosis. Spine J 2007; 7; 428-36. (Pubitemid 47040671)
6. Pritchett JW , Bortel DT. Degenerative symptomatic lumbar scoliosis . Spine 1993; 18; 700-3. (Pubitemid 23154428)
7. Perennou D , Marcelli C , Herisson C , et al. Adult lumbar scoliosis. Epidemiologic aspects in a low-back pain population. Spine 1994; 19; 123-8. (Pubitemid 24047297)
8. Trammell TR , Schroeder RD , Reed DB. Rotatory olisthesis in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1988; 13; 1378-82. (Pubitemid 19019775)
9. Frazier DD , Lipson SJ , Fossel AH , et al. Associations between spinal deformity and outcomes after decompression for spinal stenosis. Spine 1997; 22; 2025-9. (Pubitemid 28069133)
10. Yamada K , Matsuda H , Nabeta M , et al. Clinical outcomes of microscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar foraminal stenosis: a comparison between patients with and without degenerative lumbar scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2010.
11. Kim DH , Rhim R , Li L , et al. Prospective study of iliac crest bone graft harvest site pain and morbidity. Spine J 2009; 9; 886-92.
12. Sengupta DK , Truumees E , Patel CK , et al. Outcome of local bone versus autogenous iliac crest bone graft in the instrumented posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine. Spine 2006; 31; 985-91. (Pubitemid 43785929)
13. Ito Z , Matsuyama Y , Sakai Y , et al. Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion . Spine 35; E1101-5.
14. Deyo RA , Gray DT , Kreuter W , et al. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005; 30; 1441-5. (Pubitemid 41760293)
15. Cunningham BW , Gordon JD , Dmitriev AE , et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine 2003; 28; S110-7. (Pubitemid 37266716)
16. Guyer RD , McAfee PC , Banco RJ , et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artifi cial disc versus lumbar fusion: fi ve-year follow-up. Spine J 2009; 9; 374-86.
17. Kanayama M , Hashimoto T , Shigenobu K , et al. A minimum 10- year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artifi - cial ligament. Spine 2007; 32; 1992-6. (Pubitemid 47301002)
18. Harrop JS , Youssef JA , Maltenfort M , et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty . Spine 2008; 33; 1701-7.
19. Videbaek TS , Egund N , Christensen FB , et al. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion: the impact of anterior column support: a randomized clinical trial with an eight- to thirteen- year magnetic resonance imaging follow-up. Spine 2010; 35; 1955-64.
20. Harms JG , Jeszenszky D. The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 1998; 6; 88-9.
21. Humphreys SC , Hodges SD , Patwardhan AG , et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2001; 26; 567-71. (Pubitemid 32224291)
22. Isaacs RE , Podichetty VK , Santiago P , et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3; 98-105.
23. Scheufl er KM , Dohmen H , Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 2007; 60; 203-12.
24. Schizas C , Tzinieris N , Tsiridis E , et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience . Int Orthop 2008; 33; 1683-8.
25. Peng CW , Yue WM , Poh SY , et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009; 34; 1385-9.
26. Villavicencio AT , Burneikiene S , Roeca CM , et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2010; 1; 12.
27. Shunwu F , Xing Z , Fengdong Z , et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 2010; 35; 615-20.
28. Wang J , Zhou Y , Zhang Z , et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 2010; 19; 1780-4.
29. Ghiselli G , Wang JC , Bhatia NN , et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86; 1497-503. (Pubitemid 38886539)
30. Hilibrand AS , Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion ? Spine J 2004; 4; 190S-4S. (Pubitemid 39497304)
31. Sears WR , Sergides IG , Kazemi N , et al. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis . Spine J 2011; 11; 11-20.
32. Stoll TM , Dubois G , Schwarzenbaum O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 2002; 11; S170-8. (Pubitemid 35244951)
33. Putzier M , Schneider SV , Funnk JF , et al. The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine 2005; 30; E109-14.
34. Kanayama M , Hashimoto T , Shigenobu K , et al. A minimum 10- year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artifi - cial ligament. Spine 2007; 32; 1992-6. (Pubitemid 47301002)
35. Schmoelz W , Huber JF , Nydegger T , et al. Infl uence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16; 418-23.
36. Cheng BC , Gordon J , Cheng J , et al. Immediate biomechanical effects vof lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine 2007; 32; 2551-7. (Pubitemid 350059481)
37. Putzier M , Hoff E , Tohtz S , et al. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: Part II. No clinical benefi t for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up. Eur Spine J 2010; 19; 2181-9