- 期刊
- OpenAccess
Comparison of Outcomes for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) between Spinal Block Bullet and Fusion Cages
並列摘要
Background: Spinal block bullet cages are considered interbody spacers rather than providing a scaffold, into which osteoinductive or osteoconductive materials could be placed. On the other hand, hollow fusion cages provide interbody fusion through osteoinductive or osteoconductive materials placed inside them. While posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with spinal block bullet cages is thought to achieve less fusion than that with fusion cages, there are no reports of previous investigation. We compared the PLIF outcomes between the two different cages. Methods: A series of patients (n=25) with lumbar disc diseases or degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were retrospectively reviewed; Group 1 (n=11) underwent PLIF with bullet cages and Group 2 (n=14) with fusion cages at a single level. Both groups received internal fixation with transpedicular screws and rods at the same level. Rostral adjacent level mobility, segmental motion, ratio of disc height, and foramen area in the fusion level were studied on the follow-up X-ray images. Fusion success was defined as segmental stability and absence of radiolucency at the cage-end plate interface. Visual analogue pain score (VAS) and the SF-8(superscript TM) health survey (SF-8) were used to access the clinical outcome. Results: The duration of follow-up was 25.9±10.65 months in Group 1 and 19.57±13.22 months (p=0.22) in Group 2. Group 1 subjects achieved the same results as those in Group 2 in segmental motion (Groups 1, 2=1.40±0.71°, 1.81±0.94°; p=0.28), ratio of disc height (Groups 1, 2=0.3±0.03, 0.29±0.07; p=0.89), foramen area (Groups 1, 2=1.30±0.28cm^2, 1.18±0.33cm^2; p=0.36), and rostral segmental motion (Groups 1, 2=6.43±4.08°, 8.89±4.84°; p=0.201). Moreover, there was no statistical difference between both groups in VAS (Group 1, 2=2.72±1.13, 3.1±0.96; p=0.44) and SF-8 (Group 1, 2=16.54±2.93, 15.1±2.37; p=0.19). Conclusion: According to our study, the spinal block bullet cages achieved the same radiological parameters and clinical outcomes for PLIF as the fusion cages.
延伸閱讀
- Yang, L. M., & Yang, L. H. (2017). Posterior epidural migration of a sequestered lumbar disc - Two cases report. Formosan Journal of Musculoskeletal Disorders, 8(3), 123-127. https://doi.org/10.6492/FJMD.20160309
- 廖健芬、林桑伊、林瑞模（2006）。Relationship between Symptoms and Functional Limitation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis。物理治療，31(1)，33-38。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=15632555-200602-31-1-33-38-a
- Tung, F. I., Chen, H. Y., & Lin, C. (2006). Comparison of Outcome Using Three Methods of Treatment for Intervertebral Lumbar Disc Disease. 北市醫學雜誌, 3(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.6200/TCMJ.2006.3.1.03
- Chen, C. H., Kuo, Y. J., Chiang, C. J., & Tsuang, Y. H. (2009). Perioperative Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Cages for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disorders. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery Taiwan, 26(3), 120-126. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=10116923-200909-26-3-120-126-a
- Yang, S. H. (2007). Postoperative Loss of Disc Height in Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Keystone Bone Grafts. Formosan Journal of Surgery, 40(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.29833/FJS.200702.0001