Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion

Kim, Young-Hoon; Ha, Kee-Yong; Kim, Younsoo; Kim, Ki-Won; Rhyu, Kee-Won; Park, Jong-Beom; Shin, Jaekyoon; Kim, Young‐Yul; Lee, Jung Hoon; Park, Hyung-Youl; Ko, Jaeryong; Kim, Sang Il

doi:10.31616/asj.2022.0435

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Allografts typically serve as an osteoconductive scaffold with limited osteoinductive capabilities. However, due to their non-viable cellular composition, allografts do not possess any inherent osteogenic potential [ 34 ]. Empirical evidence indicates that DBM may possess superior osteoinductive qualities owing to the exposure of soluble factors consequent to demineralization.…”

Section: Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clinical Use of Osteobiologic and Metallic Biomaterials in Orthopedic Surgery: The Present and the Future

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the area and range of surgical treatments in the orthopedic field have expanded, the development of biomaterials used for these treatments has also advanced. Biomaterials have osteobiologic properties, including osteogenicity, osteoconduction, and osteoinduction. Natural polymers, synthetic polymers, ceramics, and allograft-based substitutes can all be classified as biomaterials. Metallic implants are first-generation biomaterials that continue to be used and are constantly evolving. Metallic implants can be made from pure metals, such as cobalt, nickel, iron, or titanium, or from alloys, such as stainless steel, cobalt-based alloys, or titanium-based alloys. This review describes the fundamental characteristics of metals and biomaterials used in the orthopedic field and new developments in nanotechnology and 3D-printing technology. This overview discusses the biomaterials that clinicians commonly use. A complementary relationship between doctors and biomaterial scientists is likely to be necessary in the future.

show abstract

Section: Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clinical Use of Osteobiologic and Metallic Biomaterials in Orthopedic Surgery: The Present and the Future

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advantages of MIS compared with conventional open surgery include smaller incisions, less blood loss, and musculoligamentous sparing, which contribute to lower complication rates [ 3 ]. Owing to its distinct characteristics, MIS has been explored for treating various diseases, including adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) [ 3 , 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Is the Feasible Option of Minimally Invasive Surgery using Posterior Approach?

Kim,

Lenke,

Pizones

et al. 2024

Asian Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous studies on minimally invasive scoliosis surgery (MISS) in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Some data on MISS in AIS compared with conventional open scoliosis surgery (COSS) are conflicting. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, including studies reporting outcomes for MISS in AIS. The meta-analysis compared the operative, radiological, and clinical outcomes and complications between MISS and COSS in patients with AIS. Of the 208 records identified, 15 nonrandomized studies with 1,369 patients (reviews and case reports are excluded) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean scale was 6.1, and eight of the 15 included studies showed satisfactory quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. For operative outcomes, MISS had significant benefits in terms of estimated blood loss (standard mean difference [SMD], -1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.94 to -0.91) and hospitalization days (SMD, -2.99; 95% CI, -4.45 to -1.53) compared with COSS. However, COSS showed significantly favorable outcomes for operative times (SMD, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.92–2.51). No significant differences were observed in radiological outcomes, including Cobb’s angle of the main curve and thoracic kyphosis. For clinical outcomes, MISS showed significant benefits on the visual analog scale score (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47). The overall complication rates of MISS were similar to those of COSS (SMD, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.52). MISS using the posterior approach provides equivalent radiological and clinical outcomes and complication rates compared with COSS. Considering the lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospitalization days, and longer operative times in MISS, COSS is still the mainstay of surgical treatment in AIS; however, MISS using the posterior approach is also one of the surgical options of choice in the case of moderate AIS.

show abstract

“…Traditionally, interbody fusion procedures such as PLIF involved a posterior approach with extensive facet joint resection, followed by insertion of a cage after traction of the nerve roots and dura mater. Subsequently, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), which provides access through the space between the nerve roots and dura mater via a posterior approach, was developed and is widely used [19]. Furthermore, minimally invasive approaches from the anterior and lateral corridors have gained popularity, including procedures such as oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), which are frequently performed [17,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expandable Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review

Lee,

Yoon,

Park

et al. 2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar fusion surgery for treating degenerative spinal diseases has undergone significant advancements in recent years. In addition to posterior instrumentation, anterior interbody fusion techniques have been developed along with various cages for interbody fusion. Recently, expandable cages capable of altering height, lordotic angle, and footprint within the disc space have garnered significant attention. In this manuscript, we review the current status, clinical outcomes, and future prospects of expandable cages for lumbar interbody fusion based on the existing literature. Expandable cages are suitable for minimally invasive spinal surgeries. Small-sized cages can be inserted and subsequently expanded to a larger size within the disc space. While expandable cages generally demonstrate superior clinical outcomes compared to static cages, some studies have suggested comparable or even poorer outcomes with expandable cages than static cages. Careful interpretation through additional long-term follow-ups is required to assess the utility of expandable cages. If these shortcomings are addressed and the advantages are further developed, expandable cages could become suitable surgical instruments for minimally invasive spinal surgeries.

show abstract

Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion

Cited by 27 publications

References 105 publications

The Clinical Use of Osteobiologic and Metallic Biomaterials in Orthopedic Surgery: The Present and the Future

The Clinical Use of Osteobiologic and Metallic Biomaterials in Orthopedic Surgery: The Present and the Future

Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Is the Feasible Option of Minimally Invasive Surgery using Posterior Approach?

Expandable Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About