Comparative effectiveness of two different interbody fusion methods for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cage versus morselized impacted bone grafts

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Hongmei Zhang¹  Junrong Lv¹  Haicheng Zhang¹  Xianzhou Li¹  Chaoliang Lv¹ 

[1] Jining No. 1 People’s Hospital, No. 6 Jiankang road, Jining, Shandong Province, China

关键词: Lumbar spinal stenosis;    Cage;    Bone graft;    Interbody fusion;   

Others  :  1227677
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0675-2

 received in 2015-03-10, accepted in 2015-08-11,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The use of an interbody fusion device (cage) to assist fusion and increase intervertebral stability is widely supported. We applied the morselized impacted bone graft method without using a cage in a single level interbody fusion with encouraging medium-term clinical results. The purpose of this paper is to compare the clinical and radiological results of local bone grafts with a cage to morselized impacted bone grafts without cage, in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery.

Methods

One hundred eighty-nine consecutive patients who underwent TLIF in our hospital were evaluated from July 2009 to July 2012. Eighty-four patients received TLIF and local bone graft with one polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage, while 96 patients received the TLIF with local morselized impacted bone grafts without a cage. The clinical data and perioperative parameters of the patients in the two groups were recorded and compared.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 35 months. There were no significant differences in operation time and blood loss between the two groups. Single-level fusion was performed in all patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups, according to the preoperative or postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. No statistically significant differences in fusion rate were observed between the two groups. At the final follow-up, the ratio of the disc height to vertebral height (HR) was not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion

Morselized impacted bone graft is as beneficial as local bone grafts with a cage for TLIF. Since the no cage procedure is less expensive, the morselized impacted bone graft is an affordable choice for single level TLIF, especially in less developed regions.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lv et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Phillips FM, Slosar PJ, Youssef JA, Andersson G, Papatheofanis F. Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine. 2013; 38:E409-E422.
• [2]Xue HM, Tu YH, Cai MW. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J. 2012; 12:209-215.
• [3]Parker SL, Adogwa O, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years. World Neurosurg. 2012; 78:178-184.
• [4]Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H et al.. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22:2022-2029.
• [5]Ahsan MK, Hossain MA, Sakeb N, Khan SI, Zaman N. Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with interbody fusion device (Cage) in degenerative disc disease (DDD): 3 years outcome. MMJ. 2013; 22:798-806.
• [6]Arts MP, Wolfs JF, Corbin TP. The CASCADE trial: effectiveness of ceramic versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy with interbody fusion: protocol of a blinded randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14:244. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Satake K, Ando K, Kobayashi K, Shinjo R, Yagi H et al.. Volumetric change in interbody bone graft after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a prospective study. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23:2144-2149.
• [8]Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW. Outcomes of L1-L2 posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the Lumbar I/F cage and the variable screw placement system: re porting unexpected poor fusion results at L1-L2. Spine J. 2006; 6:421-427.
• [9]Miura Y, Imagama S, Yoda M, Mitsuguchi H, Kachi H. Is local bone viable as a source of bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion? Spine. 2003; 28:2386-2389.
• [10]Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine. 1993; 18:2106-2117.
• [11]Gologorsky Y, Skovrlj B, Steinberger J, Moore M, Arginteanu M, Moore F et al.. Increased incidence of pseudarthrosis after unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spondylosis. J Neurosurg: Spine. 2014; 21:601-607.
• [12]Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y. Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2010; 35:E1101-E1105.
• [13]Okuyama K, Kido T, Unoki E, Chiba M. PLIF with a titanium cage and excised facet joint bone for degenerative spondylolisthesis-in augmentation with a pedicle screw. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20:53-59.
• [14]Huang H, Jiang C, Feng ZZ, Jiang XX. Comparing the process of creeping substitution between allograft bone and local bone grafting in lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23:2068-2074.
• [15]Wang J, Zhou Y. Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center. Spine J. 2014; 14:2078-2084.
• [16]Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, Jiang F, Xu N, Ju W et al.. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurg. 2013; 72:21-26.
• [17]Patil SS, Rawall S, Nagad P, Shial B, Pawar U, Nene AM. Outcome of single levelinstrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion using corticocancellouslaminectomy bone chips. Indian J Orthop. 2011; 45:500-503.
• [18]Chen L, Tang T, Yang H. Complications associated withposterior lumbar interbody fusion using Bagby and Kuslichmethod for treatment of spondylolisthesis. Chin Med J. 2003; 116:99-103.
• [19]Kim DH, Jeong ST, Lee SS. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a unilateral single cage and a local morselized bone graft in the degenerative lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009; 1:214-221.
• [20]Abdul QR, Qayum MS, Saradhi MV, Panigrahi MK, Sreedhar V. Clinico-radiologicalprofile of indirect neural decompression using cage or autograft as interbody construct in posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis: which is better? J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2011; 2:12-16.
• [21]Owens RK, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF stratified by diagnostic indication. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 27:144-147.