A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine

26Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (SD 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (SD 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); 'good' global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patientorientated results at two years. ©2009 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Grob, D., Bartanusz, V., Jeszenszky, D., Kleinstück, F. S., Lattig, F., O’Riordan, D., & Mannion, A. F. (2009). A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B, 91(10), 1347–1353. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B10.22195

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free