Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion.
Cho, Jae Hwan; Hwang, Chang Ju; Lee, Dong-Ho; Lee, Choon Sung.
Afiliação
  • Cho JH; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1, PungNap-2-dong, SongPa-gu, Seoul, South Korea. spinecjh@gmail.com.
  • Hwang CJ; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1, PungNap-2-dong, SongPa-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Lee DH; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1, PungNap-2-dong, SongPa-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Lee CS; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1, PungNap-2-dong, SongPa-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 22(1): 963, 2021 Nov 17.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34789224
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Although the original technique involves inserting two cages bilaterally, there could be situations that only allow for insertion of one cage unilaterally. However, only a few studies have compared the outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) between unilaterally and bilaterally inserted cages.

METHODS:

Among 206 eligible patients who underwent 1- or 2-level PLIF, 78 patients were 13 cohort-matched by age, sex, and operation level (group U, 19 patients with unilateral cages; and group B, 57 patients with bilateral cages). Fusion status was evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans at postoperative 1 year. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. Radiological and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups. Risk factors for pseudarthrosis were also analyzed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS:

The demographic data were not significantly different between the two groups. However, previous laminectomy, asymmetric disc collapse, and fusion at L5-S1 level were more frequently found in group U (P = 0.003, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). Furthermore, pseudarthrosis was more frequently observed in group U (36.8%) than in group B (7.0%) (P = 0.004). Back pain VAS was higher in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.033). Lower general activity function of EQ-5D was observed in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.035). Older age (P = 0.028), unilateral cage (P = 0.007), and higher bone mineral density (P = 0.033) were positively correlated with pseudarthrosis.

CONCLUSIONS:

Unilaterally inserted cage might be a possible risk factor for pseudarthrosis when performing PLIF, which could be related with the difficult working conditions such as scars due to previous laminectomy or asymmetric disc collapse. Furthermore, suboptimal clinical outcomes are expected following PLIF with unilateral cage insertion at postoperative 1 year regardless of similar clinical outcomes at postoperative 2 year. Therefore, caution is advised when inserting cages unilaterally, especially under above-mentioned conditions in terms of its possible relationship with symptomatic pseudarthrosis.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fusão Vertebral Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fusão Vertebral Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article