Cargando…

Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND: A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients treated with a PEEK cage compared to those treated with an autologous cage using the lumbar spinous process and laminae (ACSP). METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Bin, Yu, Hui, Chen, Zhida, Huang, Zhuanzhi, Zhang, Wenbin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27577978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1237-y
_version_ 1782450781255892992
author Lin, Bin
Yu, Hui
Chen, Zhida
Huang, Zhuanzhi
Zhang, Wenbin
author_facet Lin, Bin
Yu, Hui
Chen, Zhida
Huang, Zhuanzhi
Zhang, Wenbin
author_sort Lin, Bin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients treated with a PEEK cage compared to those treated with an autologous cage using the lumbar spinous process and laminae (ACSP). METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease were randomly assigned to either a PEEK cage (group A, n = 34) or an ACSP (group B, n = 35). Monosegmental PLIF was performed in all patients. Mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates and complication rates were recorded and compared. The patients were followed postoperatively for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Successful radiographic fusion was documented in all patients. No flexion–extension hypermobility or pedicle screw loosening or breakage occurred during the follow-up period. No significant difference existed between the 2 groups when comparing the mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates or complication rates. Overall satisfactory results were achieved in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the ACSP appears to be equally as safe and effective as the PEEK cage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN25558534. Retrospectively registered 16/02/2016.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5004315
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50043152016-08-31 Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion Lin, Bin Yu, Hui Chen, Zhida Huang, Zhuanzhi Zhang, Wenbin BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients treated with a PEEK cage compared to those treated with an autologous cage using the lumbar spinous process and laminae (ACSP). METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease were randomly assigned to either a PEEK cage (group A, n = 34) or an ACSP (group B, n = 35). Monosegmental PLIF was performed in all patients. Mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates and complication rates were recorded and compared. The patients were followed postoperatively for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Successful radiographic fusion was documented in all patients. No flexion–extension hypermobility or pedicle screw loosening or breakage occurred during the follow-up period. No significant difference existed between the 2 groups when comparing the mean lumbar lordosis, mean disc height, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, functional outcomes, fusion rates or complication rates. Overall satisfactory results were achieved in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the ACSP appears to be equally as safe and effective as the PEEK cage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN25558534. Retrospectively registered 16/02/2016. BioMed Central 2016-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5004315/ /pubmed/27577978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1237-y Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lin, Bin
Yu, Hui
Chen, Zhida
Huang, Zhuanzhi
Zhang, Wenbin
Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
title Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
title_full Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
title_fullStr Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
title_short Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
title_sort comparison of the peek cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27577978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1237-y
work_keys_str_mv AT linbin comparisonofthepeekcageandanautologouscagemadefromthelumbarspinousprocessandlaminaeinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT yuhui comparisonofthepeekcageandanautologouscagemadefromthelumbarspinousprocessandlaminaeinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT chenzhida comparisonofthepeekcageandanautologouscagemadefromthelumbarspinousprocessandlaminaeinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT huangzhuanzhi comparisonofthepeekcageandanautologouscagemadefromthelumbarspinousprocessandlaminaeinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT zhangwenbin comparisonofthepeekcageandanautologouscagemadefromthelumbarspinousprocessandlaminaeinposteriorlumbarinterbodyfusion