Posterior interbody fusion using laminectomy bone and transpedicular screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Csécsei, György; Klekner, Álmos; Dobai, J.; Lajgut, Attila; J, Sikula

doi:10.1016/s0090-3019(99)00198-6

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Once the back pain and neuroclaudication improved, our patients had good functional outcomes. The average reported fusion rate ranges from 90% to 95.7% in patients with noncage PLIF [11,21] and from 90% to 100% in patients with cage PLIF [1,3,5,20,25,26,39,40,49]. Our fusion result was comparable to those of other published studies (Table 6).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spondylolisthesis

Wang

Chen

2008

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spondylolisthesis

Wang

Chen

2008

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spinal fusion for DDD is the most common accepted treatment in effort to eliminate abnormal motion and instability at the symptomatic degenerated levels, and thereby reduce or eliminate low-back pain [1,4,7,17]. Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative to spinal arthrodesis, is increasingly applied for surgically treating lumbar DDD [30,32,42].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Zhu

Han

et al. 2010

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have sightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year followup. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More highquality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

show abstract

“…Initial treatment is usually conservative, including rest, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, wearing of a body brace and physical therapy. Main indications for surgery are: (1) intractable pain, (2) progression of symptoms with radicular involvement, or (3) progression of the slip [3]. There are many different operative procedure reported in the literature, but all must comply to the principle of adequate decompression, repositioning, fusion and adequate fixation in order to achieve a good outcome [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Main indications for surgery are: (1) intractable pain, (2) progression of symptoms with radicular involvement, or (3) progression of the slip [3]. There are many different operative procedure reported in the literature, but all must comply to the principle of adequate decompression, repositioning, fusion and adequate fixation in order to achieve a good outcome [3]. These operative procedures can be performed via either an anterior or posterior approach, with a choice of autogenous graft and allograft can be used for fusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%