Three- to six-year follow-up of stand-alone BAK cages implanted by a single surgeon

Button, Gavin; Gupta, Munish C.; Barrett, Cinnie; Cammack, Paul; Benson, Daniel R.

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.06.021

Cited by 47 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite positive results [6], the stability of stand-alone cages has been questioned during the low muscular preloading phases when the cage has been suspected to be less stable [7]. The instability during the bone healing process is hypothesized to be one of the main reasons for pseudarthrosis [8][9][10] and subsidence [3]. Compared with standalone cage, supplementary fixation increases the stiffness and stability [3] and significantly improves the fusion rate [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases

Allain

Delécrin²,

Beaurain³

et al. 2014

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose ALIF with cages is expected to restore disc height and stabilize the spine promoting fusion, while avoiding damage attributed to rod-pedicle screw fixation. However, it may be related to an increased risk of fusion failure and subsidence. A prospective study was conducted by five investigators across three centers to confirm performance of a PEEK cage for stand-alone ALIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Methods Sixty-five patients, with back ± leg pain, requiring surgery for DDD, were included. Efficacy and safety were evaluated at 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Fusion and subsidence were assessed through CT-images at 12-month follow-up. Disc height was measured. Clinical outcomes included back and leg pain (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), Quality of Life (Short-Form 36), and adverse events. Results The fusion and the subsidence rates were 96.3 and 2.0 %, respectively. ALIF surgery restored anterior and posterior disc height compared to baseline. There were no device-related serious adverse events, and no revision surgeries. Clinical outcomes improved significantly through 12-month follow-up. Conclusion Safety and efficacy of this stand-alone cage with integrated intracorporeal plates was confirmed through 12 months for treatment of degenerative conditions. The design of the cage and plates may contribute to the decreased subsidence rate observed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases

Allain

Delécrin²,

Beaurain³

et al. 2014

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advantages of ALIF over traditional posterior approaches have been well described in literature (4,6,8,9). In most cases, ALIF is a somewhat easier approach for L5− S1, below the bifurcation of the great vessels.…”

Section: Approach Indications and Relative Contraindicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review

Winder¹,

Gambhir²

2016

J. Spine Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of lumbar fusion for the treatment of various degenerative lumbar spine diseases has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. Many lumbar fusion techniques have been developed and popularized, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) initially introduced in the 1930's, has become a common and widely accepted technique for lumbar fusions over the last decade offering several advantages over standard posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). More recently, the lateral trans-psoas approach termed extreme, direct or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF, DLIF, LLIF) is gaining widespread popularity.The aim of this paper is to compare the approaches, advantages and disadvantages of ALIF and XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion based on relevant literature.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the use of interbody fusion is debatable for low-grade spondylolisthesis. Standalone interbody fusion without posterior instrumentation is discouraged in this condition due to high rates of failure such as cage migration (Button et al, 2005).…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Management of Low Back Pain and Degenerative Spinal Disorders

Le¹,

Bederman²

2012

Low Back Pain Pathogenesis and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three- to six-year follow-up of stand-alone BAK cages implanted by a single surgeon

Cited by 47 publications

References 20 publications

Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases

Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases

Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review

Surgical Management of Low Back Pain and Degenerative Spinal Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About