Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Buttermann, Glenn R.; Thorson, Tague M.; Mullin, W.J.

doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2999-7

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…34 In the present study, postoperative MRI found the T2 signal intensity ratio of the multifidus muscles to psoas control muscle to be substantially increased relative to the preoperative ratio. Within the author's region, some spine surgeons never remove instrumentation, whereas other do so routinely.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

“…In this study of 2level fusion patients, the injection most commonly was made at L5 and S1 but, in a few patients, up to 6 pedicle screwheads were injected. 34,51 A post hoc power analysis was performed to determine the number of patients that would have to be studied to show a difference in VAS low back pain and ODI. Three patients did not improve with the diagnostic portion of the injection, and their instrumentation was retained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 Midline versus paraspinal group comparisons included t tests and repeatedmeasures regression analysis to investigate whether differences between the groups occurred over time with the change in these parameters from preoperative values. Changes between the 2 groups also were evaluated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two-Level Circumferential Lumbar Fusion Comparing Midline and Paraspinal Posterior Approach

Buttermann

Mullin

2015

Journal of Spinal Disorders &Amp; Techniques

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 44%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two-Level Circumferential Lumbar Fusion Comparing Midline and Paraspinal Posterior Approach

Buttermann

Mullin

2015

Journal of Spinal Disorders &Amp; Techniques

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the duration of post-operation narcotic use, a number of studies reported results reflecting other post-operation narcotic uses (Additional file 5 : Other results of post-operation narcotic usage). A total of ten studies [ 18 , 21 , 22 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 – 51 ] directly compared the MIS and OS procedures, three studies [ 25 , 33 , 52 ] only focused on MIS and five studies only used OS [ 26 , 28 , 38 , 45 , 47 ]. The proportion of patients who used narcotics for pain control, at different follow-up intervals were frequently described, but the definition of narcotics was not clearly described.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques

Wang¹,

Borgman

Vertuani³

et al. 2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChronic low back pain is a common health problem for adult workers and causes an enormous economic burden. With the improvement of minimally invasive surgical techniques (MIS) in spinal fusion and the development of fusion devices, more lumbar operations are today being performed through a less invasive technique. When compared with open surgeries (OS), MIS has demonstrated better clinical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, complication rates and length of hospital stay. The aim of this review was to identify and summarize evidence on the time to return to work and the duration of post-operation narcotic use for patients who had lumbar spinal fusion operations using MIS and OS techniques.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed including studies identified from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) (January 2004–April 2014) for publications reporting on time to return to work and post-operation narcotic use after MIS or OS lumbar spinal fusion surgeries.ResultsOut of a total of 36 included studies, 28 reported on the time to return to work and 17 on the narcotic use after MIS or OS. Four studies described the time to return to work directly comparing MIS and OS. Three studies, from the US, directly compared the duration of narcotic use between MIS- transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and OS-TLIF. In addition to the time to return to work, 23 studies reported on the rate of return to work and the employment rate before and after surgery, and two Swedish studies presented sick leave data.ConclusionsThere is a gap of good quality data describing the time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion operations using MIS or OS techniques. However, the current systematic literature review indicates that patients who have lumbar spinal fusion operations, with the MIS procedure, generally return to work after surgery more quickly and require less post-operation narcotics for pain control compared to patients who have OS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2398-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Many studies have confirmed lower incidence of surgical trauma with translaminar facet fixation compared to transpedicular stabilization, yet the data about biomechanical recovery of the operated spinal region and the timescales of reliable bone block formation are rather contradictory [13][14][15].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Patients with Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbosacral Spine Using a Novel Technology of Facet Stabilization with Facet Wedge Implant

Калинин¹,

Okoneshnikova²,

Byvaltsev³

2017

Sovrem Tehnol Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Russian FederationTranspedicular fixation with interbody fusion widely used in management of degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine is associated with significant intraoperative aggression during surgery and postsurgical pain syndrome. To improve treatment results, a novel minimally invasive technology of facet fixation with Facet wedge implant in combination with transpedicular stabilization and interbody fusion has been introduced.The aim of the investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of facet fixation technology with Facet wedge implant in combination with transpedicular stabilization and interbody fusion in treatment of patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine.Materials and Methods. The study involved 19 patients who underwent unilateral decompression with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, ipsilateral transpedicular stabilization and facet fixation on the contralateral side, according to clinical and instrumental indications. The minimum follow-up period of observation and complex evaluation of treatment results was 12 months.Results. when assessing pain syndrome by visual analogue scale and the degree of disability according to Oswestry disability index in the early postoperative period and in the long-term period, mostly good and excellent outcomes, statistically significantly better results were observed compared to the preoperative values. an interbody bone block was formed within 12 months in 89% (n=17) of patients, according to radiographic data.Conclusion. Decompression with a novel minimally invasive technology of combined dorsal fusion provides the possibility to significantly reduce pain, lower the degree of disability and implement efficient stabilization of the operated functional spinal segment in patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine.Key words: stabilization of facet joints; transpedicular fixation; spinal canal decompression; lumbosacral spine; degenerative lesion of the intervertebral disc; TLIF.For contacts: Vadim a. Byvaltsev, e-mail: byval75vadim@yandex.ru Facet Stabilization in Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbosacral SpineMany degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine are the indication for performing interbody fusion [1,2]. Transpedicular fixation of interbody cages has been the gold standard in effective stabilization of vertebral motion segments after resection of posterior supporting elements for decompression of spinal canal structures [3, 4].The method of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), first introduced by Harms and Rolinger in 1982 [5], has gained popularity in the last two decades. The advantages of transforaminal interventions over the classical posterior interbody fusion have been confirmed by a number of studies: low risks of damage to dura mater and the spinal roots, lower blood loss, better bone block formation [6,7]. However, some authors evidence the significant injury of paravertebral tissues and muscular-ligamentous apparatus resulting from such interventions and contributing to the formatio...

show abstract

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

Two-Level Circumferential Lumbar Fusion Comparing Midline and Paraspinal Posterior Approach

Two-Level Circumferential Lumbar Fusion Comparing Midline and Paraspinal Posterior Approach

A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques

Treatment of Patients with Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbosacral Spine Using a Novel Technology of Facet Stabilization with Facet Wedge Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About