Anterior Interbody Lumbar Spine Fusion

Stauffer, Richard N.; Coventry, Mark B.

doi:10.2106/00004623-197254040-00006

Cited by 269 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was managed conservatively with antithrombotic medications and ultrasound control examinations; a spontaneous resolution was observed. Postoperative wound infections after ALIF have been cited to be between 1 and 2% [27,32,36]. We had one superficial postoperative infection in the minimally invasive group at the posterior instrumentation site, which resolved with antibiotics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Anterior lumbar interbody fusion alone has been cited to have fusion rates between 56 and 80% [10,17,23,36]. By combining the anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation, the pseudoarthrosis rate decreases substantially [3,7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The danger of injuring the hypogastric plexus, which in men may result in retrograde ejaculation, is small when operating by the retroperitoneal approach but cannot be completely excluded. Reported incidence of retrograde ejaculation in men who had undergone fusion by retroperitoneal approach is 1-10% [29,32,35,36,39]. This takes place especially when monopolar diathermy or microdiathermy is used instead of endoclips [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1960, Harmon described a left extraperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine [15]. This was met by initial criticism from Stauffer and Coventry who condemned this approach, as it involved "too much surgical trauma to the patient" [36]. However, subsequent reports established growing popularity of the extraperitoneal approach with satisfactory results [12,37].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Stauffer and Coventry [ 161 ] reported on 31 patients with postlaminectomy instability, of whom 27 (87%) had a solid posterolateral fusion and 58% had a good clinical result. The same authors [160] reported on a series of 14 patients treated with anterior interbody fusion for the same condition, which resulted in a good outcome for 50% of patients and a non-union rate of 55%. The few articles [110,154,185] reporting on pedicular stabilization of iatrogenic instability do not subdivide the results further to allow a reasonable outcome assessment.…”

Section: Low-back Pain Disordersmentioning

confidence: 93%

Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders: A European view

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continuing controversy over the use of pedicular fixation in the United States is promoted by the lack of governmental approval for the marketing of these devices due to safety and efficacy concerns. These implants have meanwhile become an invaluable part of spinal instrumentation in Europe. With regard to the North American view, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews that consider the historical evolution of pedicle screw systems, the rationales for their application, and the clinical outcome from a European perspective. This literature review suggests that pedicular fixation is a relatively safe procedure and is not associated with a significantly higher complication risk than non-pedicular instrumentation. Pedicle screw fixation provides short, rigid segmental stabilization that allows preservation of motion segments and stabilization of the spine in the absence of intact posterior elements, which is not possible with non-pedicular instrumentation. Fusion rates and clinical outcome in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures appear to be superior to that achieved using other forms of treatment. For the correction of spinal deformity (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, spondylolisthesis, tumor), pedicular fixation provides the theoretical benefit of rigid segmental fixation and of facilitated deformity correction by a posterior approach, but the clinical relevance so far remains unknown. In low-back pain disorders, a literature analysis of 5,600 cases of lumbar fusion with different techniques reveals a trend that pedicle screw fixation enhances the fusion rate but not clinical outcome. The most striking finding in the literature is the large range in the radiological and clinical results. For every single fusion technique poor and excellent results have been described. This review argues that European spine surgeons should begin to back up the evident benefits of pedicle screw systems for specific spinal disorders by controlled prospective clinical trials. This may prevent forthcoming medical licensing authorities from restricting the use of pedicle screw devices and dictating the practice of spinal surgery in Europe in the near future.

show abstract