Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Plates

Steffee, Arthur D.; Sitkowski, Daniel J.

doi:10.1097/00003086-198802000-00013

Cited by 151 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in accordance with the literature. Intersomatic lumbar spacers along with posterior fusion are used with the purpose to improve fusion and spinal biomechanics, and provide a better support for the anterior spine column 11,12 . Duffield 30 have demonstrated, in fatigue tests, the need for an anterior support for the lumbar spine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preoperative mean Rolland-Morris questionnaire score in Group I was 11.2 (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). The mean post-operative score was 7.4 (1-22).…”

Section: Group II (Plif) -mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…we have found few papers in the literature comparing the use of pedicle screws with pedicle screws associated with a posterior intersomatic posterior fusion in the surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis 11,12,15,16 . The purpose of this study was twofold: to compare efficacy of the posterior lumbar interdody fusion (PLIF) with the posterior lumbar fusion (PLF); and to compare the complications of both procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis

Dantas

Prandini

Ferreira

2007

Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The purpose of this study was to compare patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis submitted to two different surgical approaches, and evaluate the results and outcomes in both groups. In a two-year period, 60 adult patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, both isthmic and degenerative, were submitted to surgery at the Biocor Institute, Brazil. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon (FLRD) in a single institution, and the results were analyzed prospectively. Group I comprised the first 30 consecutive patients that were submitted to a posterior lumbar spinal fusion with pedicle screws (PLF). Group II comprised the last 30 consecutive patients submitted to a posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure (PLIF) with pedicle screws. All patients underwent foraminotomy for nerve root decompression. Clinical evaluation was carried out using the Prolo Economic and Functional Scale and the Rolland-Morris and the Oswestry questionnaire. Mean age was 52.4 for Group I (PLF), and 47.6 for Group II (PLIF). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years. Both surgical procedures were effective. The PLIF with pedicle screws group presented better clinical outcomes. Group I presented more complications when compared with Group II. Group II presented better results as indicated in the Prolo Economic and Functional Scale.KEy wORDS: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), posterior lumbar fusion, spondylolisthesis, pedicle screws, lumbar spine, spinal instrumentation.estudo comparativo entre fusão lombar posterior com parafuso pedicular e fusão intersomáti-ca lombar posterior associada com parafuso pedicular em espondilolistese no adulto RESUMO -O objetivo foi comparar dois grupos de pacientes portadores de espondilolistese lombar que foram submetidos a dois procedimentos cirúrgicos distintos, avaliando os resultados clínicos levando em consideração a qualidade de vida. Durante o período de 1998 a 2001 sessenta pacientes portadores de espondilolistese da coluna lombar ístmica e degenerativa foram submetidos a tratamento cirúrgico no Hospital Biocor em Belo Horizonte, por um mesmo cirurgião foram analisados prospectivamente. Os primeiros trinta pacientes foram submetidos a fusão posterior com parafusos pediculares e os trinta seguintes a fusão posterior com parafusos pediculares associada a fusão intersomática posterior. Os pacientes foram submetidos a liberação radicular com laminectomia e foraminotomia. A avaliação clínica foi feita utilizando as escalas de Prolo Econômico e Funcional, o questionário de Rolland-Morris e de Oswestry. Os resultados clínicos apresentaram que os dois procedimentos realizados foram eficazes. Houve maior número de complicações relacionadas com a biomecânica no grupo que foi submetido somente à fusão posterior e o grupo submetido à fusão posterior associada a fusão intersomática apresentou melhores resultados com retorno as atividades diárias e melhora da qualidade de vida.PALAvRAS-CHAvE: fusão intersomática lombar posterior, fusão lombar posterior, espondilolistese, fixação pedicular, coluna lombar,...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preoperative mean Rolland-Morris questionnaire score in Group I was 11.2 (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). The mean post-operative score was 7.4 (1-22).…”

Section: Group II (Plif) -mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis

Dantas

Prandini

Ferreira

2007

Arq. Neuro-Psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1951, Cloward [2] reported satisfactory results in more than 85% of 331 patients using this technique. In addition, because of the moderately high pseudoarthrosis rate encountered with using stand-alone grafts, it has become common to augment the PLIF technique with pedicle screws [3]. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was popularized by Harms et al [4] as an alternative to PLIF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques have only recently been developed. The goals of these procedures are to reduce approach-related soft tissue injury, postoperative pain and disability while allowing the surgery to be conducted in an effective manner. There have been no prospective clinical reports published on the comparison of one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade spondylolisthesis performed with an independent blade retractor system or a traditional open approach. A prospective clinical study of 85 consecutive cases of degenerative and isthmic lower grade spondylolisthesis treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) was done. A total of 85 patients suffering from degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 46) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (n = 39) underwent one-level MiTLIF (n = 42) and OTLIF (n = 43) by two experienced surgeons at one hospital, from June 2006 to March 2008 (minimum 13-month follow-up). The following data were compared between the two groups: the clinical and radiographic results, operative time, blood loss, transfusion needs, X-ray exposure time, postoperative back pain, length of hospital stay, and complications. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index. The operative time, clinical and radiographic results were basically identical in both groups. Comparing with the OTLIF group, the MiT-LIF group had significantly lesser blood loss, lesser need for transfusion, lesser postoperative back pain, and shorter length of hospital stay. The radiation time was significantly longer in MiTLIF group. One case of nonunion was observed from each group. Minimally invasive TLIF has similar surgical efficacy with the traditional open TLIF in treating one-level lower grade degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. The minimally invasive technique offers several potential advantages including smaller incisions, less tissue trauma and quicker recovery. However, this technique needs longer X-ray exposure time.

show abstract

“…PLIF had been proved to be superior to PLF in certain studies [6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] whereas certain studies show that PLF is better [8,10,11]. There is a definitive indication to compare both the techniques which is the primary aim of our study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Treatment of Adult Spondylolisthesis: PLIF versus PLF: Comparitive Study of Early Functional Outcome

Rn¹,

BALAKRISHNAN²

2017

J Clin Exp Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Aim of this study is to assess and compare the early functional outcomes and results of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment of adult spondylolisthesis.Background: Posterolateral fusion has been considered the best method for surgical treatment of adult spondylolisthesis. This technique had been widely used. Superior results have subsequently been reported with interbody fusion with cages and posterior instrumentation. In axial loading pull out strength and eccentric loading remains a disadvantage for PLF. The problems such as axial pain, loss of reduction, loosening or failure of fixation materials occurred relatively frequently after posterolateral fusion could be improved by an operation that fused vertebral bodies.

show abstract

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Plates

Cited by 151 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis

Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis

Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2

Treatment of Adult Spondylolisthesis: PLIF versus PLF: Comparitive Study of Early Functional Outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About