The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the Variable Screw Placement System: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial

Brantigan, John W.; Neidre, Arvo; Toohey, John S.

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.05.253

Cited by 112 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is today widely used in lumbar spinal fusion because of less violation to the spinal canal, compared to PLIF, and due to less time consumption and morbidity compared to ALIF, to achieve interbody fusion, which by many authors is considered to be the treatment of choice [2,3,15,20,23]. To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized prospective study to analyze a standardized instrumented spinal posterolateral fusion procedure with a TLIF procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The spinal fusion is applied to eliminate the segment motion and to treat instability at the symptomatic degenerated levels and thereby could reduce or eliminate lower back pain [1]. Brantigan et al [5] reported the 10-year results of circumferential fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD. The high rate of clinical success (87.8%), fusion success (96.7%), and patient satisfaction (93.9%) was achieved at 10 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, the degeneration at adjacent segment may be accelerated, which is known as the adjacent segment disease (ASD) [39]. It was reported in Brantigan's study that adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 61% of patients, but was clinically significant only in 20% at 10 years after lumbar fusion [5]. Total disc replacement has been employed in an attempt to avoid disadvantages of the fusion surgery, such as adjacent segment degeneration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Zhu

Han

et al. 2010

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar fusion has been developed for several decades and became the standard surgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Artificial total disc replacement (TDR), as an alternative for spinal arthrodesis, is becoming more commonly employed treating lumbar DDD. It is still uncertain whether TDR is more effective and safer than lumbar fusion. To systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of TDR to that of the fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD, we performed a meta-analysis. Cochrane review methods were used to analyze all relevant randomized controlled trials published up to July 2009. Five relevant randomized controlled trials involving 837 patients were identified. Patients in TDR group have sightly better functioning and less back or leg pain without clinical significance, and significantly higher satisfaction status in TDR group compared with lumbar fusion group at the 2-year followup. But these outcomes are highly influenced by the study with BAK cage interbody fusion, the function/pain and patient satisfaction status are no longer significantly different between two groups after excluding this study. At 5 years, these outcomes are not significantly different between comparing groups. The complication and reoperation rate of two groups are similar both at 2 and at 5 years. In conclusion, TDR does not show significant superiority for the treatment of lumbar DDD compared with fusion. The benefits of motion preservation and the long-term complications are still unable to be concluded. More highquality RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

show abstract

“…Spinal fusion for treatment of patients with severe symptoms from disc disease, instability, deformity or stenosis has demonstrated to be successful and cost-effective [1][2][3][4]. Anterior fusion offers advantages in terms of diminishing damage to lumbar muscles, wider disc exposure, greater surface for fusion and optimal endplate preparation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct lateral access lumbar and thoracolumbar fusion: preliminary results

Berjano

Balsano²,

Buric

et al. 2012

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To describe the clinical outcomes and complications in a consecutive series of extreme lateral interbody fusion cases. Methods Retrospective cohort review of 97 consecutive patients from three centers with minimum 6-month followup (mean 12 months). Functional status was evaluated by preoperative and last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index score. Leg and back pain were evaluated by visual analog scales. Complications were recorded and permanent complications and neurological impairment was actively investigated at last follow-up. Results No permanent neurological impairment, vascular or visceral injuries were observed. Transient neurological symptoms presented in 7% of cases, all resolved within 1 month from surgery. Transient thigh discomfort was observed in 9%. Clinical success was recorded in 92% of cases. Conclusions Extreme lateral interbody fusion is a safe and effective technique for anterior interbody fusion.

show abstract

The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the Variable Screw Placement System: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial

Cited by 112 publications

References 29 publications

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

A meta-analysis of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease

Direct lateral access lumbar and thoracolumbar fusion: preliminary results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About