MOS Short Form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience

Glassman, Steven D.; Gornet, Matthew F.; Branch, Charles L.; Polly, David W.; Peloza, John; Schwender, James D.; Carreon, Leah Y.

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.09.004

Cited by 155 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both groups in the present study had significant improvement in pain and disability outcomes and were in the range of prior reports [24,25]. The present study found decreased blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and a lower reoperation rate for the facet instrumentation group, which is consistent with the previous comparative studies [17,26,27].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Buttermann

Thorson

Mullin³

2013

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation. Method A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and [1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging. Results Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p \ 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods [1 year (p \ 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group. Conclusion One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Buttermann

Thorson

Mullin³

2013

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The later incidence of osseous consolidation in the study group did not lead to any complications that may have influenced the clinical data. Twelve months postoperatively, the improvements seen in both the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, and in the visual analog scale, were consistent with the data given in the literature [15,27].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fusion is thought to improve back pain by eliminating sources believed to be responsible in back pain including the disc, facet joints and the neural elements. The clinical outcome of lumbar fusions for the treatment of DDD varies widely in the literature [2][3][4][21][22][23][24][25][26]. A meta-analysis comprising 14 studies of instrumented posterolateral fusion combined with an interbody fusion with a minimum of 2-year followup revealed a mean reduction in back pain 49.1% and a mean decrease in ODI scores of 20.6.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid construct for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective study. To study the validity of Hybrid construction (Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion) ALIF at one level and total disc arthroplasty (TDA) at adjacent, for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine as surgical strategy. With growing evidence that fusion constructs in the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) may alter sagittal balance and contribute to undesirable complications in the long-term, total disc arthroplasty (TDA) slowly becomes an accepted treatment option for a selected group of patients. Despite encouraging early and intermediate term results of single-level total disc arthroplasty reported in the literature, there is growing evidence that two-level arthroplasty does not fare as well. Hybrid fusion is an attempt to address two-level DDD by combining the advantages of a single-level ALIF with those of a single-level arthroplasty. 42 patients (25 females and 17 males) underwent Hybrid fusion and had a median followup of 26.3 months. The primary functional outcomes were assessed before and after surgery with Oswestry Disability Index and the visual analogue score of the back and legs. Patients were divided into four groups according to the percentage improvement between preop and postop ODI scores. A total of 42 patients underwent a hybrid fusion as follows: 35 L5-S1 ALIF/L4-5 prosthesis, 3 L4-5 ALIF/L3-4 prosthesis, 2 L5-S1 ALIF/L4-5 prosthesis/L3-4 prosthesis, 1 L5-S1 prosthesis/L4-5 ALIF, and 1 L5-S1 ALIF/L4-5 ALIF/L3-4 prosthesis. At 2-years clinical outcomes, mean reduction in ODI is 24.9 points (53.0% improvement compared to preop ODI). The visual analogue score for the back is 64.6% improvement. At 2-year clinical outcomes, Hybrid fusion is a viable surgical alternative for the treatment of two-level DDD in comparison with two-level TDA and with two-level fusion.

show abstract

MOS Short Form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience

Cited by 155 publications

References 21 publications

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study

Hybrid construct for two levels disc disease in lumbar spine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About