Terms Of Fusion Rate Research Articles

Comparison of facet fusion rates and clinical outcomes between cortical bone trajectory screw and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTCortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws have been introduced as an alternative technique for pedicle screw (PS) insertion because they have greater contact with the cortex and a greater uniaxial pullout load than traditional PS. CBT screwing can also minimize muscle dissection. However, CBT screws and traditional PSs have not yet been compared in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes for particular operative procedures. PURPOSEThis study aimed to assess the fusion rate and clinical outcomes of facet fusion (FF) fixed with CBT screws (CBT-FF) and to compare them with those of FF fixed with percutaneous PS (PPS-FF). STUDY DESIGNRetrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLERecords of 68 patients who underwent CBT-FF for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with at least 1 year of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. The control group comprised 143 patients who underwent PPS-FF under the same conditions. OUTCOME MEASURESComputed tomography was performed to confirm fusion. Therapeutic effectiveness was assessed as a clinical outcome using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and visual analog scale (VAS) preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The rate of revision surgery was also calculated. Intraoperative blood loss was measured. METHODSFusion rate, clinical outcomes, revision surgery rate, and intraoperative blood loss of CBT-FF and PPS-FF were compared. RESULTSThe CBT-FF and PPS-FF fusion rates were 91.2% and 90.1%, respectively. The JOABPEQ category scores demonstrated therapeutic effectiveness in 74.5% and 77.1% of the patients for low back pain; the corresponding proportions for walking ability were 84.7% and 89.3%, respectively. No significant differences in therapeutic effectiveness were observed for any category, including the RMDQ and VAS scores for buttock and lower limb pain. Three patients required revision surgery for adjacent segment disease between 6 months and 3.5 years after CBT-FF (revision surgery rate, 4.4%), whereas the revision surgery rate for PPS-FF was 6.3% (9/143 cases). Average intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the CBT-FF group than in the PPS-FF group. CONCLUSIONSBoth procedures were equally useful in terms of fusion rate and clinical outcomes for DLS management.

A Novel Intraoperative Posture-Adjustment Apparatus for Correction of Cervical Lordosis in Anterior Cervical Surgery.

Cervical alignment is a crucial factor related to the success of anterior cervical surgical procedures. In patients with severe spinal cord compression, a traditional neck pillow (TNP) may not adequately correct cervical position during surgery. Therefore, the aim of this study was to introduce this innovative intraoperative posture-adjustment apparatus (IPAA), and explored its clinical and radiological results in cervical angle correction against TNP in patients who had undergone anterior cervical surgery. The clinical and radiological data of 86 patients who underwent anterior cervical surgery with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 58 patients underwent IPAA, whereas 28 underwent TNP. Radiological parameters such as the degree of C2-C7 lordosis (CL), functional spinal unit angle (FSUA), C7 slope (C7S), fusion rate, and adjacent segment disease (ASD) were recorded and compared between the groups. Clinical outcomes including the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), neck disability index (NDI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for neck and arm were recorded. Complications such as kyphosis, dysphagia, Braden Scale score, revision surgery, hematoma, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, wound infection, and deep venous thrombosis were also recorded. The independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous data, and categorical variables were assessed using the Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Compared with the pre-operative data, the post-operative CL, FSUA, and C7S were significantly increased in both groups. CL, FSUA, and C7S in the IPAA group (14.44 ± 4.94°, 7.36 ± 2.91°, 16.54 ± 4.63°) were significantly higher than those in the TNP group (7.17 ± 8.19°, 4.99 ± 5.36°, 14.19 ± 4.48°; P < 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of VAS arm and JOA scores, the post-operative and final follow-up NDI and VAS neck scores in the IPAA group were significantly lower than those in the TNP group (p < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the TNP group had significantly more kyphotic patients than the IPAA group (2 vs. 0, p = 0,041). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of fusion rate, ASD, or complications such as dysphagia, Braden's Scale score, revision surgery, hematoma, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, wound infection, or deep venous thrombosis. IPAA was shown to be more effective than TNP in adjusting cervical alignment (CL, FSUA, and C7S). These findings suggest that IPAA could be used as an alternative way to TNP in neck setting and cervical alignment adjustment and IPAA could potentially improve clinical outcomes after anterior cervical surgery.

Clinical and imaging outcomes of self-locking stand-alone cages and anterior cage-with-plate in three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective comparative study

BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion has been considered standard management for cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy. However, the option of using self-locking stand-alone cages or cage-with-plate in three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and imaging outcomes of the two procedures in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.MethodsSixty-seven patients who underwent three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion were enrolled in this study, of which 31 patients underwent surgery using self-locking stand-alone cages (group cage) and 36 patients using cage-with-plate (group plate). For the evaluation of clinical outcomes, modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, visual analogue scale for neck pain, neck disability index, Odom’s criteria and dysphagia status were measured. Imaging outcomes were evaluated by cervical sagittal angle, fusion segmental Cobb’s angle, fusion segmental height, range of motion, cage subsidence rate, fusion rate and adjacent segment degeneration. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software (version 19.0).ResultsBoth groups showed improvement in modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, visual analogue scale for neck pain and neck disability index, after surgery, and there was no significant difference between the groups. The occurrence rate of dysphagia is significantly lower in the group cage compared with the group plate (p < 0.05). The postoperative cervical sagittal angle, fusion segmental Cobb’s angle, fusion segmental height and cage subsidence rate in the group plate were significantly superior to that in the group cage (p < 0.05). However, the rate of adjacent segment degeneration was significantly lower in the group cage compared with the group plate (p < 0.05). Both groups showed no significant difference in terms of fusion rate (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe self-locking stand-alone cages are effective, reliable and safe in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy. Self-locking stand-alone cages showed a significantly lower rate of dysphagia and adjacent segment degeneration, while anterior cervical cage-with-plate could provide stronger postoperative stability and maintain better cervical spine alignment.

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5–S1: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the radiologic and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L5–S1.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF and PLIF) at only the L5–S1 and were followed up for more than 12 months. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD), diagnosis, comorbid conditions, fusion rate, perioperative results, and pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters at the L5–S1 level, pelvic parameters and degree of spondylolisthesis, and clinical results were analyzed.Results: A total of 102 patients (46 male, 56 female) with a mean age of 57.1 years were evaluated. Fifty and fifty-two patients underwent MIS-TLIF and PLIF surgeries, respectively. Radiologic parameters increased from their preoperative measures at the last follow-up study; similarly, there were no intergroup differences. The fusion rates in the MIS-TLIF and PLIF groups were 86% and 82.7%, respectively. The subsidence rates in the MIS-TLIF and PLIF groups were 6% and 3.8%, respectively. There was no intergroup difference in terms of fusion rate and subsidence. Clinical outcomes also gradually improved after surgery in both groups without intergroup differences.Conclusion: In L5–S1 posterior spinal surgery, there was no significant difference between MIS-TLIF and conventional PLIF. Considering the operation time and estimated blood loss, MIS-TLIF is more effective than PLIF surgery in terms of postoperative health care and economics.

Clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic vs open ankle arthrodesis for advanced ankle arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:Ankle fusion is the primary treatment for advanced ankle arthritis. With the advancement of arthroscopy technology, ankle arthroscopy fusion has shown many advantages over traditional surgery. However, there are few related studies globally, and evidence-based medicine is needed to verify the reliability and feasibility of ankle arthroscopy fusion.Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and open ankle arthrodesis.Methods:We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], Wanfang Database, and VIP Database for published prospective or retrospective controlled studies of arthroscopic-assisted ankle fusion in the treatment of advanced ankle arthritis. The dates were limited from the construction of the library to June 30, 2019. Literature was included based on the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine. Literature retrieval, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers using the Cochrane 5.1 risk bias assessment tool. The methodological bias of the literature was evaluated, and a meta-analysis was using by RevMan 5.3 software.Results:A total of 18 studies and 1102 patients were included in the study, including 551 in the arthroscopic surgery group and 551 in the open surgery group. Arthroscopy-assisted surgery for advanced ankle arthritis was more effective than open surgery in terms of fusion rate (odd ratio[OR] = 3.32, 95% confidence interval[CI]:2.16, 5.10), fusion time (mean difference[MD] = −2.31, 95% CI:−4.63, −2.21), intraoperative blood loss (MD = −43.37, 95%CI: −48.49, −38.25), hospital stay (MD = −1.80, 95%CI: −2.28, −1.33), and visual analog scale score (MD = −1.75, 95%CI: −2.04, −1.46). In addition, rate of complications (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.21, 0.52) was superior to open ankle fusion (P < .00001).Conclusion:Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis has more advantages than open ankle arthrodesis in improving the fusion rate and reducing complications, which is worthy of clinical application.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42020195727.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Debridement and Fusion with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Instrumentation for Spondylodiscitis

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody debridement and fusion (MiTLIDF) with percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation (PSI) is a less invasive treatment for lumbar spondylodiscitis. Patients with single-level lumbar spondylodiscitis were surgically treated by interbody debridement and fusion through an anterior or transforaminal approach combined with open or percutaneous PSI (group A: anterior debridement and interbody fusion with open posterior PSI; group B: transforaminal lumbar interbody debridement and fusion [TLIDF] with open posterior PSI; group C: anterior debridement and interbody fusion with percutaneous PSI; group D: MiTLIDF with percutaneous PSI). Perioperative data, fusion status, infection-free survival, and clinical outcome measurements were compared among the 4 surgical groups. A total of 82 patients were included in this study. TLIDF was associated with shorter operative time when compared with the anterior approach (group A: 302.8 ± 59.9 minutes; group B: 209.2 ± 31.0 minutes; group C: 260.6 ± 62.5 minutes; group D: 207.1 ± 33.6 minutes; P < 0.001). Percutaneous PSI resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (group A: 907.5 ± 253.7 mL; group B: 859.4 ± 201.2 mL; group C: 532.9 ± 193.7 mL; group D: 399.1 ± 84.3 mL) and reduced immediate postoperative pain (group A: 5.5 ± 0.9; group B: 4.9 ± 0.9; group C: 3.9 ± 0.7; group D: 3.2 ± 0.7) than open PSI (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of overall infection-free survival (P= 0.936). This study demonstrated MiTLIDF with percutaneous PSI is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar spondylodiscitis while incurring no adverse effects in terms of fusion rate, functional recovery, and infection eradication.

Intramedullary nail versus external fixator for ankle arthrodesis in Charcot neuroarthropathy: A meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Ankle Charcot neuroarthropathy presents a great challenge for treatment. While conservative treatments yield poor results, arthrodesis is considered the treatment of choice for unstable Charcot ankles. There are two methods used for ankle fusion: retrograde intramedullary nail (IMN) and external fixator (EF). Literature reports inconclusive results on which method is better for arthrodesis. The aim of this meta-analysis is to look for significant difference between the two techniques in terms of fusion rate and complications. Four comparative studies including 117 patients (117 interventions) were located and analyzed. IMN was found to yield double fusion rate than EF ( p = 0.2) with 5 weeks less time to heal ( p = 0.4). While no significance was noted for revision surgery and amputation rates, EF yielded higher rates of hardware infection ( p = 0.01) and wound infection ( p = 0.01). The IMN method seems to offer quicker and better fusion rate when compared to EF with significantly lower postoperative infection rates. In the clinical context of high-risk patients such as the diabetic population, IMN technique could be a better option in the case of ulcer-free ankles/feet or in the presence of medial/lateral ulcers. In case of presence of plantar ulcers, EF might be a better choice to avoid the plantar approach for nail insertion. Future research with bigger sample sized and randomized studies are warranted for validation.

Acute Arthrodesis of Interphalangeal Joints of the Hand in Traumatic Injuries.

Trauma resulting in severe comminution, bone loss, and articular involvement of the fingers is a challenging injury. Osteosynthesis of the digits is nonviable when there is an inability to restore a stable articular surface adequately. Acute arthrodesis of the proximal and distal interphalangeal joints may be an option in such scenarios. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of finger joint arthrodesis in the setting of trauma, in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes. Patients with injuries treated via acute finger arthrodesis between 2010 and 2012 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Complete finger amputations requiring replantation were excluded. Finger arthrodesis was performed acutely via intraosseous cerclage wires, Kirschner wires, or tension band wiring. Fusion rates were determined by plain radiography, and clinical outcomes were assessed with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. A total of 11 patients were recruited. All patients were males with an average age of 35.3 years (range: 21-63 years). None of the cases involved the thumb, and there was an equal distribution of injury amongst the fingers. Nine of the 11 patients involved the distal interphalangeal joint with the remaining involving the proximal interphalangeal joint. Radiologic union was achieved in 9 out of 11 patients, and the average time to fusion was 75.5 days. The average DASH score for the patients was 16.5 (10.8-22.5). All patients were able to return to their premorbid occupation, with average time to return to work of 104.3 days (59-168 days). There were no cases of infection or reoperation. We propose that posttraumatic acute arthrodesis of the finger joints is a viable treatment in situations in which there is difficulty in restoring the articular congruity, with early return to work and good function.

Is stand alone PEEK cage the gold standard in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)? Results of a minimum 1-year follow up

IntroductionThis study was designed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results of stand-alone synthetic polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages for two- or three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), with a focus on subsidence. Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed a total of 68 patients who underwent two- or three-level ACDF with a stand-alone PEEK cage between April 2005 and August 2016. Radiologic parameters were assessed on lateral radiographs, and fusion was assessed on computed tomography scans. For the evaluation of clinical outcomes, visual analogue scale, neck disability index, and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were measured. ResultsAmong the total of 68 patients with a total of 144 segments, ACDF at two and three levels was performed in 60 and 8 patients, respectively, with a mean follow-up duration of 27.6 months. The overall fusion rate was 81.3% (117 of 144 segments), and subsidence occurred in 63 segments (43.8%) at the last follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference between the subsidence group and the nonsubsidence group in terms of fusion rate, radiologic outcomes, and clinical outcomes (p > .05). ConclusionSubsidence might be an inevitable course and only a radiologic phenomenon with no effect on the clinical and radiologic outcomes of the use of stand-alone cages.

Comparative Study of Cortical Bone Trajectory-Pedicle Screw (Cortical Screw) Versus Conventional Pedicle Screw in Single-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 2-Year Post Hoc Analysis from Prospectively Randomized Data

The aim of this study was to report 2-year follow-up outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screw (CS), in terms of fusion rates, clinical outcomes, surgical outcomes, and complications, and to compare these outcomes with outcomes for PLIF with conventional pedicle screw (PS). We enrolled 79 patients and randomly assigned them to 2 groups (group A with PS, 39 patients; group B with CS, 40 patients), and finally 37 and 35 in group A and B were analyzed in the study. The primary outcome measure was the fusion rate, evaluated by dynamic radiographs and computed tomography scans. Secondary outcome measures included 1) patient satisfaction; 2) clinical outcomes measured with pain intensity using a visual analog scale, the Oswestry Disability Index, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey; 3) radiologic outcomes; and 4) complications. At 2-year follow-up, the fusion rate was comparable between the PS and CS groups (35 of 37 patients in the PS group; 32 of 35 patients in the CS group; P > 0.99). The patient satisfaction rate at the 1-month follow-up was significantly greater in the CS group than in the PS group (P= 0.03); however, there was no significant difference between the groups at the 1-year and 2-year follow-ups. Clinical outcomes, radiologic outcomes, and related complications revealed no significant differences in both groups within 2 years postoperatively. We suggest that CS in single-level PLIF may be an alternative to PS.

The role of orthobiologics in foot and ankle surgery: Allogenic bone grafts and bone graft substitutes.

Orthobiologics are biological substances that are used therapeutically for their positive effects on healing skeletal and soft-tissue injuries. The array of orthobiological products currently available to the foot and ankle surgeon is wide, and includes bone allografts, bone substitutes, growth factors, and chondral scaffolds. Nonetheless, despite the surge in interest and usage of orthobiologics, there remains a relative paucity of research addressing their specific applications in foot and ankle surgery. In this review, we attempt to provide an overview of the literature on commonly available allogenic bone grafts and bone substitutes.There is Level II, III and IV evidence addressing allogenic bone grafts in primary arthrodesis and osteotomy procedures in foot and ankle surgery, which compares favourably with autogenic bone grafts in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes (often with fewer complications), and supports a Grade B recommendation for its use.Pertaining to bone substitutes, the multiplicity of products, coupled with a lack of large prospective clinical trials, makes firm recommendations difficult. Level II and IV studies of calcium phosphate and calcium sulphate products in displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures have found favourable results in addressing bone voids, maintaining reduction and promoting union, meriting a Grade B recommendation. Evidence for TCP is limited to level IV studies reporting similarly good outcomes in intra-articular calcaneal fractures, warranting a Grade C recommendation. The use of demineralised bone matrix products in hindfoot and ankle fusions has been described in Level II and III studies, with favourable results in achieving fusion and good clinical outcomes, supporting a Grade B recommendation for these indications.Overall, despite the general lack of high-level evidence in foot and ankle surgery, allogenic bone grafts and bone substitutes continue to hold front-line roles in treating the bone defects encountered in trauma, tumour, and deformity correction surgery. However, more investigation is required before firm recommendations can be made.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:272–280. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160044

Worker's Compensation Status and Outcomes Following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Prospective Observational Study.

Anterior lumbar-interbody fusion (ALIF) is a commonly performed procedure for degenerative spinal disorders with reasonable clinical and safety outcomes, although there is limited evidence regarding the impact of ALIF in patients receiving worker's compensation (WC) compared with those without. The aim of our study is to identify whether WC status affects the clinical outcome and rates of complication following ALIF surgery in a prospective cohort. We followed prospectively 114 consecutive patients undergoing ALIF surgery from 2012-2014. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those with worker's compensation (WC) (n= 24) and those without (n= 90). Patients were evaluated preoperative and postoperatively. Outcome measures included Short Form-12 (SF-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), surgical complications, and subsidence. In terms of baseline traits, the WC group had a significantly higher proportion of class III/IV obesity patients, who were younger (46.3 vs. 60.2 years) compared with non-WC. There were no significant differences in fusion rates or preoperative or postoperative disk height. No significant differences were found for hospital stay, blood loss, or operation duration. Similar rates of complications were found between WC versus non-WC cohorts. No significant difference was noted in clinical improvement between the 2 cohorts with SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, or ODI (P= 0.232). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for SF-12 PCS/MCS or ODI. In our prospective cohort, there were no significant differences found between WC versus non-WC patients in terms of fusion rates, complications, clinical outcomes, or proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference.

Clinical assessment of 115 cases of hindfoot fusion with two different types of graft: Allograft + DBM + bone marrow aspirate versus autograft + DBM

IntroductionNonunion is a common complication (15%) of hindfoot and ankle arthrodesis. Autograft can improve the fusion rate because of its osteoconductive, osteoinductive and osteogenic properties. However, autograft harvesting is a source of morbidity. One alternative is to combine allograft with demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and iliac bone marrow aspirate (BMA). This combination graft has similar biological properties to healthy bone. When used alone, allograft has osteoconductive and sometimes structural properties. DBM provides osteoinduction and improves the osteconductivity. BMA adds cells and thereby osteogenic potential. HypothesisGiven its intrinsic properties, allograft-DBM-BMA is as effective as autograft-DBM treatment while simplifying the clinical practice. Material and methodsOne hundred and fifteen cases of ankle and hindfoot arthrodesis were studied in 82 patients divided in two groups: autograft-DBM vs allograft-DBM-BMA. Treatment effectiveness was assessed using clinical (time to fusion, fusion rate) and radiological (trabecular bone bridge, disappearance of joint space) criteria. A CT scan was done in 60% of cases when fusion could not be confirmed using the clinical and radiological criteria. ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, number of heterotopic ossifications, revision rate and quantity of DBM used. The nonunion rate was 18% in the autograft group and 13% in the allograft group. The infection rate was 11% in the autograft and 4% in the allograft group. DiscussionAllograft-DBM-BMA is an alternative to autograft-DBM that provides similar effectiveness without increasing the number of nonunion or complications. Osteonecrosis and surgical revision are risk factors. Level of evidenceIII retrospective study.

Autograft versus Allograft for Cervical Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Study DesignSystematic review.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), non-ICBG autologous bone, and allograft in cervical spine fusion. To avoid problems at the donor site, various allograft materials have been used as a substitute for autograft. However, there are still questions as to the comparative effectiveness and safety of cadaver allograft compared with autologous ICBG.MethodsA systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disk disease using ICBG compared with non-ICBG autograft or allograft or non-ICBG autograft compared with allograft in the cervical spine. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. Adverse events were evaluated for safety.ResultsThe search identified 13 comparative studies that met our inclusion criteria: 2 prospective cohort studies and 11 retrospective cohort studies. Twelve cohort studies compared allograft with ICBG autograft during anterior cervical fusion and demonstrated with a low evidence level of support that there are no differences in fusion percentages, pain scores, or functional results. There was insufficient evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with non-ICBG autograft for fusion, pain, revision, and functional and safety outcomes. No publications directly comparing non-ICBG autograft with ICBG were found.ConclusionAlthough the available literature suggests ICBG and allograft may have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes following anterior cervical fusion, there are too many limitations in the available literature to draw any significant conclusions. No individual study provided greater than class III evidence, and when evaluating the overall body of literature, no conclusion had better than low evidence support. A prospective randomized trial with adequate sample size to compare fusion rates, efficacy measures, costs, and safety is warranted.

Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.

Iliac Crest Bone Graft versus Local Autograft or Allograft for Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Study Design Systematic review.Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) and local autologous bone and allograft in the lumbar spine.Methods A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases identified studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with degenerative joint disease using ICBG, local autograft, or allograft in the thoracolumbar spine.Results Six comparative studies met our inclusion criteria. A “low” strength of the overall body of evidence suggested no difference in fusion percentages in the lumbar spine between local autograft and ICBG. We found no difference in fusion percentages based on low evidence comparing allograft with ICBG autograft. There were no differences in pain or functional results comparing local autograft or allograft with ICBG autograft. Donor site pain and hematoma/seroma occurred more frequently in ICBG autograft group for lumbar fusion procedures. There was low evidence around the estimate of patients with donor site pain following ICBG harvesting, ranging from 16.7 to 20%. With respect to revision, low evidence demonstrated no difference between allograft and ICBG autograft. There was no evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with local autograft for fusion, pain, functional, and safety outcomes.Conclusion In the lumbar spine, ICBG, local autograft, and allograft have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes. However, ICBG is associated with an increased risk for donor site-related complications. Significant limitations exist in the available literature when comparing ICBG, local autograft, and allograft for lumbar fusion, and thus ICBG versus other fusion methods necessitates further investigation.

Arthrodesis of thumb interphalangeal and finger distal interphalangeal joints using the intramedullary X-Fuse® implant: Retrospective analysis of 38 cases

Various indications exist for thumb interphalangeal and finger distal interphalangeal arthrodesis. Various fixation techniques (compression screws, tension band wiring, K-wires) have been described with fusion rates varying between 80 and 100%. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of interphalangeal arthrodesis using the X-Fuse® intramedullary implant in terms of fusion rate and fusion position. A continuous series of 38 arthrodesis procedures was reviewed retrospectively to determine the fusion rate and evaluate complications linked to this fixation technique. The position of the fused joint was compared to that obtained at the end of the procedure so as to evaluate the reliability of implant placement. The fusion rate was 94.8%; two arthrodeses had to be redone with satisfactory results. A moderate change of less than 10 degrees in the arthrodesis position between the immediate postoperative period and fusion was observed in the frontal and sagittal planes that had no clinical consequences. The fusion rate reported here is similar to the best rates published with other fusion techniques, and few complications occurred. Use of this intramedullary implant seems to be a viable alternative to the other techniques.

The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial

Background contextPedicle screws (PS) offer great benefits in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), but several drawbacks of PS, including the risk of superior facet joint violation and muscle injury, have also pointed out. Recently, cortical screws (CS) were invented, which can be placed without the drawbacks associated with PS. However, whether CS in PLIF can provide similar or greater clinical and radiologic outcomes compared to those of PS has not been fully evaluated in clinical research studies. PurposeTo evaluate whether the CS provides similar results to the PS in PLIF, in terms of fusion rate, clinical and surgical outcomes, and complications. Study designThis is a prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial. Patient sampleSeventy-nine eligible patients were randomly assigned to either Group A (39 patients), for which PS was used, or Group B (40 patients), for which CS was used. Outcome measuresThe primary study end point was to measure fusion rate using dynamic radiographs and computed tomography scans. Secondary end points included intensity of low back pain and pain radiating to the leg using visual analog scales, and also, functional status using the Oswestry Disability Index, surgical morbidity, and additional outcomes such as pedicle fracture and mechanical failure. MethodsWe compared baseline data in both groups. To evaluate the efficacy of CS in PLIF compared to PS, we compared fusion rates, clinical outcomes, and complications after surgery in both groups. ResultsAt the 6- and 12-month follow-up points, similar fusion rates were observed in both groups (p=.81 and 0.61, respectively). According to the clinical outcome, CS provided similar improvements in pain amelioration and functional status compared to PS, with no significant differences. Additionally, CS resulted in significantly less surgical morbidity, including shorter incision length, quicker operative time, and less blood loss, compared to PS. ConclusionsCS in PLIF provides similar clinical and radiologic outcomes compared to PS in PLIF. On the basis of the present study, we suggest CS to be a reasonable alternative to PS in PLIF.

Lumbar spinal fusion with β-TCP granules and variable Escherichia coli–derived rhBMP-2 dose

Background contextThe ideal tissue-engineered solution for any bone graft substitute is to assist in the rapid formation of bone and facilitate fusion. PurposeThe present study aims to evaluate this E-BMP-2 (Escherichia coli–derived human bone morphogenetic protein-2) in ovine posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) to examine the influence of dose and overall performance in a model with similar graft size and diffusive challenges to the human. Study design/settingIn vivo large animal model study. MethodsAn adult ovine PLF was performed in 30 animals with groups of E-BMP-2 with a beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) carrier at three different dosages, β-TCP alone, and autograft from the iliac crest. The fusions were assessed by radiography (X-ray and microcomputed tomography), mechanical testing, and hard-tissue histology with bone labels at 6, 8, and 10 weeks along with routine paraffin histology at 12 weeks. ResultsResults showed increasing new bone and fusion rate with E-BMP-2 dose, whereas β-TCP alone was largely resorbed and did not achieve fusion in this model at 12 weeks. Autograft showed similar grading for the amount of bone between the transverse processes but a lower fusion rate than β-TCP/E-BMP-2 groups. Bone labels revealed new bone formation at all time points for the E-BMP2 groups, whereas the autograft group showed active bone formation at 10 weeks. Beta-tricalcium phosphate displayed reliable incorporation into the decorticated host bone, whereas limited new bone was found between the transverse processes. At the center of the fusion mass, increased E-BMP-2 dose led to increased incorporation of β-TCP by new bone. ConclusionsThese results suggest that E-BMP-2 was capable of producing posterolateral fusion in the ovine model that is equal to or superior to autologous graft in terms of fusion rate and mechanical strength. E-BMP-2 dose had considerable influence on β-TCP granule resorption.

Cell Based Therapies as Compared to Autologous Bone Grafts for Spinal Arthrodesis

Systematic review. To compare the clinical outcome of cell based grafts combined with bone extenders to autologous bone grafts. Alternative graft options that combine mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) with synthetic or allograft scaffolds have been recently used in several animal and clinical studies. This systematic review of the literature addresses the following key questions (KQs): (1) Does the use of MSCs or BMA combined with synthetic or allograft extenders contribute to thoracolumbar fusion rates that are comparable with the rates achieved by the use of iliac crest graft? (2) Are these fusion rates comparable with those of local bone graft (LBG)? (3) Does the addition of MSCs or BMA to iliac crest bone graft or LBG contribute to better throracolumbar fusion rates? (4) Are the cervical spine fusion outcomes achieved by the use of SCM or BMA with synthetic or allograft scaffolds comparable with the iliac crest bone graft or LBG outcomes? (5) Was there any difference in terms of fusion rates, when MSCs were compared with BMA? For KQ1, 4 level II, III studies used iliac crest bone graft as control. The results of these studies were inconsistent, and the overall body of evidence was found insufficient. Three, level II, III studies were identified for KQ2. Comparable fusion rates were demonstrated between LBG and BMA combined with calcium phosphate or collagen carrier. The overall body of evidence was found weak. For KQ3, one level III study was found. No significant difference was found in the fusion rates. No studies met the criteria for KQ4, 5. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support the use of MSCs or BMA combined with synthetic or allograft materials as a substitute or supplementary graft to autologous bone graft. 2.