期刊文献+

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion 被引量:2

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a common surgical procedure and widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders. Traditionally, posterior lumbar interbody fusion is done by using the traditional pedicle screw (PS) which offers great advantages, but at the same time it has some disadvantages which include the risk of superior facet joint violation and muscle damage. Recently, an alternative method of screw insertion via cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been invented which has less invasive process and can be placed without the drawbacks associated with the traditional pedicle screw. However, it has to remain an interest whether CBT will provide similar or greater clinical outcomes compared to PS in PLIF. So the main aim of this review is to compare the clinical outcomes of cortical bone trajectory and traditional pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion based on the articles published on this topic. Compared to the traditional pedicle screw fixation, PLIF with CBT has similar clinical outcome based on pain intensity, ODI status and JOA score, as well as similar fusion rate and radiological evaluated complication such as loosening of screw. In addition PLIF with CBT has advantages of less facet joint violation, less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage and perioperative pain. On the basis of this study, we can suggest that PLIF with CBT can be considered as a reasonable alternative to PS in PLIF. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is a common surgical procedure and widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders. Traditionally, posterior lumbar interbody fusion is done by using the traditional pedicle screw (PS) which offers great advantages, but at the same time it has some disadvantages which include the risk of superior facet joint violation and muscle damage. Recently, an alternative method of screw insertion via cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has been invented which has less invasive process and can be placed without the drawbacks associated with the traditional pedicle screw. However, it has to remain an interest whether CBT will provide similar or greater clinical outcomes compared to PS in PLIF. So the main aim of this review is to compare the clinical outcomes of cortical bone trajectory and traditional pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion based on the articles published on this topic. Compared to the traditional pedicle screw fixation, PLIF with CBT has similar clinical outcome based on pain intensity, ODI status and JOA score, as well as similar fusion rate and radiological evaluated complication such as loosening of screw. In addition PLIF with CBT has advantages of less facet joint violation, less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage and perioperative pain. On the basis of this study, we can suggest that PLIF with CBT can be considered as a reasonable alternative to PS in PLIF.
出处 《Open Journal of Orthopedics》 2019年第3期31-47,共17页 矫形学期刊(英文)
关键词 Posterior LUMBAR INTERBODY Fusion CORTICAL Bone TRAJECTORY Traditional PEDICLE SCREW Fixation CORTICAL SCREW PEDICLE SCREW Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cortical Bone Trajectory Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation Cortical Screw Pedicle Screw
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献34

  • 1McLain RF, Sparling E, Benson DR. Early failure of short- segment pedicle instrumentation for thoracolumbar fractures. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75:162-167.
  • 2Hailong Y, Wei L, Zhensheng M, Hongxun S. Computer analysis of the safety of using three different pedicular screw insertion points in the lumbar spine in the Chinese population. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: 619-623.
  • 3Sugisaki K, An HS, Espinoza Orias AA, Rhim R, Andersson GBJ, Inoue N. In vivo three-dimensional morphometric analysis of the lumbar pedicle isthmus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 2599-2604.
  • 4Di Silvestre M, Parisini R Lolli K Bakaloudis G. Complicationsof thoracic pedicle screws in scoliosis treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 1655-1661.
  • 5Ponnusamy KE, Iyer S, Gupta G, Khanna AJ. Instrumentation of the osteoporotic spine: biomcchanical and clinical considerations. Spine J 2011; 11 : 54-63.
  • 6Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 2009; 9: 366-373.
  • 7Sterba W, Kim DG, Fyhrie DP, Yeni YN, Vaidya R. Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 385-391.
  • 8Cho W, Cho SK, Wu C. The biomechanics of pedicle screw- based instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92B: 1061- 1065.
  • 9Inceoglu S, Montgomery WH Jr, St Clair S, McLain RF. Pedicle screw insertion angle and pullout strength: comparison of 2 proposed strategies. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14: 670-676.
  • 10Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39: E240-E245.

共引文献11

同被引文献14

引证文献2

二级引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部