Fusion Procedures For Degenerative Disease Research Articles

Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine. Part 4: Radiographic Assessment of Fusion

Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine. Part 4: Radiographic Assessment of Fusion

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology

"Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology" published on Jun 2005 by Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 15: electrophysiological monitoring and lumbar fusion

Based on the medical evidence provided by the literature reviewed, there does not appear to be support for the hypothesis that any form of intraoperative monitoring improves patient outcomes following lumbar decompression or fusion procedures for degenerative spinal disease. Evidence does indicate that a normal evoked EMG response is predictive for intrapedicular screw placement (high NPV for breakout). The presence of an abnormal EMG response does not, however, exclude intrapedicular screw placement (low PPV). The majority of clinically apparent postoperative nerve injuries are associated with intraoperative changes in SSEP and/or DSEP monitoring. For this reason, changes in DSEP/SSEP monitoring appear to be sensitive to nerve root injury. There is a high-false positive rate, however, and changes in DSEP and SSEP recordings are frequently not related to nerve injury. A normal study has been shown to correlate with the lack of a significant postoperative nerve injury. There is no substantial evidence to indicate that the use of intraoperative monitoring of any kind provides useful information to the surgeon in terms of assessing the adequacy of nerve root decompression at the time of surgery.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: magnetic resonance imaging and discography for patient selection for lumbar fusion

Discography is an exquisitely sensitive but not specific diagnostic test for the diagnosis of discogenic low-back pain. The restriction of the definition of a positive discographic study to one that elicits concordant pain from a morphologically abnormal disc improves the definition's accuracy. Fusion surgery based on discography alone, however, is not reliably associated with clinical success. Therefore, discography is not recommended as a standalone test for treatment decisions in patients with low-back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging is a sensitive and noninvasive test for the presence of degenerative disc disease. Discography should not be attempted in patients with normal lumbar MR images. Discography appears to have a role in the evaluation of patients with low-back pain, but it is best limited to the evaluation of abnormal interspaces identified on MR imaging, the investigation of adjacent-level disc disease, and as a means to rule out cases of nonorganic pain from surgical consideration.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: fusion following decompression in patients with stenosis without spondylolisthesis

Based on the medical evidence derived from the scientific literature on this topic, there does not appear to be evidence to support the hypothesis that fusion (with or without instrumentation) provides any benefit over decompression alone in the treatment of lumbar stenosis in patients in whom there is no evidence of preoperative deformity or instability. A single report provides Class II medical evidence and several papers provide Class III medical evidence suggesting that the addition of fusion to decompression in patients with lumbar stenosis and instability evidenced by movement on preoperative flexion-extension radiographs does improve outcome. There are also reports (Class III medical evidence) indicating that patients with lumbar stenosis, without deformity or instability, treated with wide decompression or facetectomy may suffer iatrogenic lumbar instability. Fusion in these patients may improve outcome. There is conflicting Class III medical evidence regarding the application of instrumentation in addition to PLF in patients treated for lumbar stenosis without deformity or preoperative instability.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 17: bone growth stimulators and lumbar fusion

There have been a number of randomized studies supporting the use of ES for the promotion of bone healing following lumbar fusion. All of the published studies have methodological flaws that prevent the studies from providing Class I medical evidence. There is, however, Class II and III evidence to support the use of direct current stimulation or CCS for enhancing fusion rates in high-risk patients undergoing lumbar PLF. A beneficial effect on fusion rates in patients not at "high risk" has not been convincingly demonstrated, nor has an effect been shown for these modalities in patients treated with interbody fusion. There is limited evidence both for and against the use of PEMFS for enhancing fusion rates following PLE Class II and III medical evidence supports the use of PEMFS for promoting arthrodesis following interbody fusion. Although some studies have purported to demonstrate functional improvement in some patient subgroups, other studies have not detected differences. All of the reviewed studies are significantly flawed by the use of a four-point patient satisfaction scale as the primary outcome measure. This outcome measure is not validated. Because of the use of this flawed outcome measure and because of the conflicting results reported in the better-designed studies that assess functional outcome, there is no consistent medical evidence to support or refute use of these devices for improving patient outcomes.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 5: correlation between radiographic and functional outcome

At the present time, there is no Class I or II medical evidence to indicate that the appearance of a radiographic fusion is significantly associated with improved functional outcomes. The majority of Class III medical evidence does suggest that successful radiographic fusion is associated with improved clinical outcomes. It is widely acknowledged that this relationship is not perfect.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis

The best medical evidence available in the literature confirms the utility of fusion for improving patient outcomes following decompression for stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis. The majority of evidence from other studies comparing outcomes after decompression alone or decompression combined with PLF in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis also favors the performance of PLF. The medical evidence regarding the use of pedicle screw fixation in this patient population is rated as Class III and is inconsistent. A consistent benefit associated with the use of pedicle screw fixation has been reported in patients with preoperative instability or kyphosis. Iatrogenic instability following decompression is associated with poor outcomes and may also be treated with PLF involving supplemental instrumentation. The precise definition of instability or kyphosis has varied among researchers and requires further study.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion

The assessment of fusion status with static plain radiography is accurate in approximately two thirds of patients treated with lumbar fusion when the radiographic results are compared with surgical exploration findings. Therefore, static plain radiography is not recommended as a stand-alone modality following lumbar fusion procedures. The addition of lateral flexion-extension radiography may improve accuracy because the lack of motion between fused lumbar segments on lateral views is highly suggestive of a solid fusion. Some degree of motion between segments may be present even when the spine has fused. The amount of motion allowable across fused segments is not clear, and the role of internal fixation in limiting motion has also not been adequately addressed. The addition of multiplanar CT scanning results in the detection of pseudarthrosis in some patients in whom fusion has been deemed successful based on plain radiographic criteria. Therefore, CT scanning may be more accurate in the determination of fusion status than plain radiography; however, a rigorous comparison of modern CT scanning and surgical exploration has not been performed. It appears that RSA is exquisitely sensitive for the detection of motion between vertebral bodies, and the loss of motion between treated vertebral segments does appear to indicate the presence of fusion. The modality, however, is invasive and not widely available. Furthermore, the only

Introduction to the Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine

Introduction to the Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 16: bone graft extenders and substitutes

Despite the large volume of animal data regarding the use of synthetic bone graft substitutes or extenders, there are very few data regarding the use of these substances for fusion in lumbar degenerative disease. The best available data indicate that rhBMP-2 is a viable alternative to autograft bone for interbody fusion procedures. This same substance may also be a viable alternative to autograft for PLF; however, definitive medical evidence is not yet available. There is little, if any, medical evidence to support the use of other biological agents at the present time. As promising new compounds are brought to market, well-designed cohort studies and randomized trials will be required to determine the actual usefulness of these compounds in clinical practice. It is important not to generalize the results obtained with one preparation or application to different preparations or applications. The use of synthetic calcium phosphate ceramics as graft extenders appears to be reasonable in certain situations. The medical evidence available regarding their use is limited and of poor quality. Further study will be required to establish their utility for use in spinal fusion.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 13: injection therapies, low-back pain, and lumbar fusion

In summary, there is no meaningful evidence in the medical literature that the use of epidural injections is of any long-term value in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. The literature does indicate that the use of lumbar epidural injections can provide short-term relief in selected patients with chronic low-back pain. There is evidence that suggests that facet joint injections can be used to predict outcome after RF ablation of a facet joint. The predictive ability of facet joint injections does not appear to apply to lumbar fusion surgery. No evidence exists to support the effectiveness of facet injections in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. There is conflicting evidence suggesting that the use of local TPIs can be effective for the short-term relief of low-back pain. There are no data to suggest that TPIs with either steroids or anesthetics alone provide lasting benefit for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion

The majority of reviewed medical evidence suggests that interbody techniques are associated with higher fusion rates compared with PLF when applied to patients with low-back pain due to DDD limited to one or two levels. The evidence is generally of poor quality and retrospective in nature. Conflicting evidence exists supporting the role of interbody graft placement for improvement of functional outcomes; however, there is no Class I or II evidence to suggest that the use of an interbody graft is associated with worse outcomes, and Class II evidence exists to suggest that outcomes are improved. Complication rates of interbody graft placement, particularly of circumferential procedures, are higher in most series. Many complications, however, are associated with pedicle screw fixation and not with interbody graft placement per se. In the context of a single-level stand-alone ALIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation, there does not appear to be a substantial benefit to the addition of a PLF. The addition of a PLF to a construct that already includes an interbody graft is, however, associated with increased costs and complications. Therefore, although the addition of supplemental fixation (a 270 degrees fusion) may be necessary for biomechanical reasons, it may not be appropriate to subject the patient to the morbidity of a full posterior exposure for placement of graft material. Significant differences in clinical outcomes between the various interbody techniques have not been convincingly demonstrated. No general recommendation can therefore be made regarding the technique that should be used to achieve interbody fusion.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis

Class I medical evidence exists in support of the use of lumbar fusion as a treatment standard for carefully selected patients with low-back pain intractable to the best medical management. There is Class III medical evidence that suggests that a course of intensive cognitive and physical therapy may be an efficacious treatment option for the treatment of patients with chronic disabling low-back pain.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome

Functional disability secondary to acute low-back pain, chronic low-back pain, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar disc disease may be reliably and validly assessed using functional outcome surveys that are valid, reliable, and responsive. Outcome instruments supported by Class I and Class II medical evidence for the evaluation of low-back pain include the Spinal Stenosis Survey of Stucki, Waddell-Main, RMDQ, DPQ, QPDS, SIP, Million Scale, LBPR Scale, ODI, and CBSQ. Many of these outcome measures have been applied to patients who have been treated with lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar disease and have proven to be valid and responsive; however, the reliability of these instruments has never been specifically assessed in the lumbar fusion patient population. Patient satisfaction surveys have been used to measure outcome following lumbar fusion. Their usefulness resides in their insight into patient attitudes toward the treatment experience but is limited because of their inability to measure responsiveness and the lack of information on their reliability.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy

There is no convincing medical evidence to support the routine use of lumbar fusion at the time of a primary lumbar disc excision. There is conflicting Class III medical evidence regarding the potential benefit of the addition of fusion in this circumstance. Therefore, the definite increase in cost and complications associated with the use of fusion are not justified. Patients with preoperative lumbar instability may benefit from fusion at the time of lumbar discectomy; however, the incidence of such instability appears to be very low (< 5%) in the general lumbar disc herniation population. Patients who suffer from chronic low-back pain, or are heavy laborers or athletes with axial low-back pain, in addition to radicular symptoms may also be candidates for fusion at the time of lumbar disc excision. Patients with a recurrent disc herniation have been treated successfully with both reoperative discectomy and reoperative discectomy combined with fusion. In patients with a recurrent lumbar disc herniation with associated spinal deformity, instability, or associated chronic low-back pain, consideration of fusion in addition to reoperative discectomy is recommended.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion

Although conflicting reports have been presented in the literature regarding the utility of lumbar braces for the prevention of low-back pain, most Class III medical evidence suggests that these supports used prophylactically do not reduce the incidence of low-back pain or decrease the amount of time lost from work in the general working population. Among workers with a history of a back injury, their use appears to decrease the number of work days lost due to back pain. Lumbar braces appear to be an effective treatment for acute low-back pain in some populations. They do not appear to be effective in the chronic low-back pain population. If a brace is used, rigid braces offer some benefit over soft braces. There are no data to suggest that relief of low-back pain with preoperative external bracing predicts a favorable outcome following lumbar spinal fusion. No information is available on the benefit of bracing for improving fusion rates or clinical outcomes following instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative disease.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 12: pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to posterolateral fusion for low-back pain

This review focused on an examination of the literature on the surgical treatment of low-back pain in patients with DDD or low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with PLF, with or without the use of pedicle screw fixation. All Class I and the majority of Class II and Class III medical evidence on this topic indicates that the addition of pedicle screw fixation to PLF increases fusion success rates when assessed based on plain x-ray films with dynamic imaging. Although there does appear to be a positive relationship between radiographic fusion and clinical outcome, no convincing correlation has been demonstrated. Although several reports suggest that clinical outcomes are improved with the addition of pedicle screw fixation, there are conflicting findings from similarly classified evidence sources (primarily Class II and III). Furthermore, the largest contemporary randomized controlled study on this topic failed to demonstrate a significant beneficial effect for the use of pedicle screw fixation in patients treated with PLF for chronic low-back pain. This absence of proof should not, however, be interpreted as a proof of absence. For example, in this same study, patient satisfaction scores improved from approximately 60% to approximately 70% with the addition of pedicle screw fixation. This difference in outcome may be clinically relevant. Similarly, the improvement in ODI scores was 40% greater in the group of patients treated with pedicle screw fixation compared with those treated with PLF alone. If an analysis to determine the sample size necessary to ensure a power of 0.8 (or an 80% chance of detecting a significant effect) in a study in which the good outcome rate is 60% in the control group and 70% in the treatment group is performed, approximately 355 patients would be needed in each treatment group (http://department.obg.cuhk.edu.hk). Alternatively, if a similar analysis is performed using the differential scores obtained in the ODI measurements reported in the paper by Fritzell, et al., approximately 225 patients would be needed per treatment group (http://calculators.stat.ucla.edu/powercalc). Although Fritzell, et al., did not detect a significant benefit associated with the use of pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to PLF, their sample size severely limited the power of their study to detect such a benefit. All studies reviewed suffer from similar lack of power. Therefore, no definitive statement regarding the efficacy of pedicle screw fixation as a means to improve functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLF for chronic low-back pain can be made. There appears to be consistent evidence suggesting that pedicle screw fixation increases the costs and complication rate of PLF. It is recommended, therefore, that the use of pedicle screw fixation as a supplement to PLF be reserved for those patients in whom there is an increased risk of nonunion when treated with PLF. High-risk patients include, but are not limited to patients who smoke, who are undergoing revision surgery, or who suffer systemic diseases known to be associated with poor bone healing.

Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome

Lumbar fusion may be associated with a high short-term cost, especially if instrumentation is placed; however, there appear to be long-term economic benefits associated with lumbar fusion including resumption of employment. To describe the economic impact of lumbar fusion for degenerative disease adequately, it is important to define the patient population treated with fusion and to compare efficacy as well as the costs of other treatment alternatives. Any such analysis should include both short- and long-term costs and benefits.