Cargando…

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND: Degenerative disc disease is common and debilitating for many patients. If conservative extensive care fails, anterior lumbar interbody fusion has proven to be an alternative form of surgical management. The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage(SAC) was introduced as a method to obtain stability an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lavelle, William, McLain, Robert F., Rufo-Smith, Candace, Gurd, David P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4325498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694930
http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/1008
_version_ 1782356814190346240
author Lavelle, William
McLain, Robert F.
Rufo-Smith, Candace
Gurd, David P.
author_facet Lavelle, William
McLain, Robert F.
Rufo-Smith, Candace
Gurd, David P.
author_sort Lavelle, William
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Degenerative disc disease is common and debilitating for many patients. If conservative extensive care fails, anterior lumbar interbody fusion has proven to be an alternative form of surgical management. The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage(SAC) was introduced as a method to obtain stability and fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) is comparable in safety and efficacy to the Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) device. METHODS: As part of a prospective, randomized, controlled FDA trial, 73 patients underwent anterior interbody fusion using either the SAC(56%) or the BAK device (44%). RESULTS: Background characteristics were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the SAC and BAK groups in mean operative time or mean blood loss during surgery. Adverse event rates did not differ between the groups. Assessment of plain radiographs could not confirm solid fusion in 63% of control and 71% of study patients. Functional scores from Owestry and SF-36 improved in both groups by the two-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between the SAC and BAK patients with respect to outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Stabilis Stand Alone Cage and the BAK Cage provided satisfactory improvement in function and pain relief, despite less than expected radiographic fusion rates. The apparent incongruency between fusion rates and functional outcomes suggests that either radiographs underestimate the true incidence of fusion, or that patients are obtaining good pain relief and improved function despite a lower rate of fusion than previously reported. This was a Level III study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4325498
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43254982015-02-18 Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lavelle, William McLain, Robert F. Rufo-Smith, Candace Gurd, David P. Int J Spine Surg Article BACKGROUND: Degenerative disc disease is common and debilitating for many patients. If conservative extensive care fails, anterior lumbar interbody fusion has proven to be an alternative form of surgical management. The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage(SAC) was introduced as a method to obtain stability and fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) is comparable in safety and efficacy to the Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) device. METHODS: As part of a prospective, randomized, controlled FDA trial, 73 patients underwent anterior interbody fusion using either the SAC(56%) or the BAK device (44%). RESULTS: Background characteristics were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the SAC and BAK groups in mean operative time or mean blood loss during surgery. Adverse event rates did not differ between the groups. Assessment of plain radiographs could not confirm solid fusion in 63% of control and 71% of study patients. Functional scores from Owestry and SF-36 improved in both groups by the two-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between the SAC and BAK patients with respect to outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Stabilis Stand Alone Cage and the BAK Cage provided satisfactory improvement in function and pain relief, despite less than expected radiographic fusion rates. The apparent incongruency between fusion rates and functional outcomes suggests that either radiographs underestimate the true incidence of fusion, or that patients are obtaining good pain relief and improved function despite a lower rate of fusion than previously reported. This was a Level III study. International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2014-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4325498/ /pubmed/25694930 http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/1008 Text en Copyright © 2014 ISASS - International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Lavelle, William
McLain, Robert F.
Rufo-Smith, Candace
Gurd, David P.
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_fullStr Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_full_unstemmed Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_short Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
title_sort prospective randomized controlled trial of the stabilis stand alone cage (sac) versus bagby and kuslich (bak) implants for anterior lumbar interbody fusion
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4325498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694930
http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/1008
work_keys_str_mv AT lavellewilliam prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialofthestabilisstandalonecagesacversusbagbyandkuslichbakimplantsforanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT mclainrobertf prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialofthestabilisstandalonecagesacversusbagbyandkuslichbakimplantsforanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT rufosmithcandace prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialofthestabilisstandalonecagesacversusbagbyandkuslichbakimplantsforanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT gurddavidp prospectiverandomizedcontrolledtrialofthestabilisstandalonecagesacversusbagbyandkuslichbakimplantsforanteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion