medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Medico de Ortopedia en Jalisco y de la Sociedad Uruguaya de Columna Vertebral (SUCVE)

2011, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

COLUMNA 2011; 1 (4)

Comparación clínica y radiológica de pacientes postoperados de espondilolistesis lumbar con instrumentación posterior con tornillos transpediculares con caja intersomática y sin caja intersomática

Cobian DW, Caldera HG

Language: Spanish
References: 43
Page: 83-90
PDF size: 395.14 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Two surgical techniques of utility for the treatment of the spondylolisthesis are the posterolateral fusion more positioning of transpedicular screws with and without placed intersomatic boxes by means of technique PLIF. But exists clinical and x-ray difference when comparing both procedures?
Material and Methods: Cases and controls. Compare the clinical and radiological evolution in the patients post operated with later instrumentation with transpedicular screws with PLIF and without PLIF. 50 patients operated between January of the 2008 to December of the 2010, the group to patients with spondylolisthesis dealt surgically with later instrumentation with transpedicular screws and later fusion, and patient group B surgically dealt with later instrumentation with transpedicular screws, later fusion and positioning of intersomatic box (PLIF). Valued with the questionnaire of Oswestry, the analogous visual scale, dynamic x-rays and computerized tomography.
Results: 27 of feminine sex and 23 of masculine sex, with age average of 52,2 years d.s. 13,1 years, being significantivs those patients with box have 0,02 of less probability of presenting/displaying fault you implant of them, with an IC al 95% of 0.01-0.44 and p ‹ 0.05. Probability of 26 times but of forming intersomatic osseous bridges for the fusion with an IC 95% of the 2.8-30.1 and p ‹ 0.05 and probability of 96 times but of not presenting/displaying mobility to flexo greater extension of 3 degrees which is equivalent to absence of pseudo arthrosis with an IC 95% of 9.2-243.3 and p ‹ 0.05. The patients ‹ 51 years of age presented/displayed less pain to the being operated with box with OR 0,15 index of confidence of 0.04-0.62 and p ‹ 0.05.
Type of study: Cases and controls. Level of evidence 3.


REFERENCES

  1. Wiltse LL, Newman PH, Mc Nab I: Classification of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop. 1976;117:23-29.

  2. Wiltse LL, Winter RB: Terminology and Measurement of spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65:768-772.

  3. Rosenberg NJ: Degenerative spondylolisthesis: Surgical treatment. Clin Orthop. 1976;117:112-120.

  4. Rowe GG, Roche MB: The etiology of separate neural arch. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1953;35:102-109.

  5. Iguchi T, Wakami T, Kurihara A, et al: Lumbar multilevel degenerative spondylolisthesis: Radiological evaluation and factors related to anterolisthesis and retrolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech.2002;15:93-99.

  6. Meyerding H: Spondylolisthesis: Surgical treatments and results. Surg Gynecol Obstet.1932;54:371-377.

  7. Boxall D, Bradford DS, Winter RB, Moe JH: Manajement of severe spondylulisthesis in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1979;61:479- 495.

  8. Taillard W: Etiology of spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop. 1976;115:30-39.

  9. Wynne-Davies R, Scott JHS: Inheritance and spondylolisthesis: a radiographic family survey. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1979;61:301-305.

  10. Bird HA, Eastmond CJ, Hudson, et al: Is Generalized Joint Laxity a factor in spondylolisthesis? Scand J Rheumatol.1980;9:203-205.

  11. Rosenberg N: Degenerative spondylolisthesis: Surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Rel Res.1976;117:112-120.

  12. Sanderson PL, Fraser RD: The influence of pregnancy on the development of degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:951-954.

  13. Crawfod NR, Cagli S, Sonntag VK, et al: Biomechanics of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: I. In vitro model. JNeurosurg Spine. 2001;94:51-60.

  14. Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update: lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine. 2000;25:389-394.

  15. Bendo JA, Ong B: importance of correlating static and dynamic imaging studies in diagnosing degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Am J Orthop. 2001;30: 247-250.

  16. Boden SD, Wiesel SW: Lumbosacral segmental motion in normal individuals: have we been measuring instability properly? Spine. 1990;5:571-576.

  17. Farfan HF: The torsional injury of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1984;9:53.

  18. Pope MH, Panjabi M. biomechanical definitions of spinal instability. Spine.1985;10: 255-256.

  19. Meyerding HW. Spondylolisthesis. Surg Ginecol Obstet. 1932;54:371-377.

  20. Matsunaga S. ljiri K, Hayashi K. Nonsurgically manager patients with degenerative espondylolisthesis: a 18 to 18 year followup study. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:194-198.

  21. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Review of current trends and controversias. Spine. 2005;30:571-581

  22. Herkowitz HN. Spine update: degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine. 1995;20: 1084-1090.

  23. Middleton K, Fish DE. Lumbar spondylosis: Clinical presentation and treatment approaches. Curr Rev Musculoeskeletal Med. 2009;2 :94-104.

  24. Roh JS, Teng AL, Yoo JU, Davis J, Furey C, Bohlman HH. Degenerative disordrs of the lumbar and cervical spine. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:255-262.

  25. Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE. Lumbar interbody fusion: State of the art technical advances. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1:24-30.

  26. Lin PM. Posterior Lumbar interbody fusion technique: Complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1985 ;193 :90-102.

  27. Rousseau MA, Lazenne JY, Bass EC, Saillant G. Predictors of outcomes after posterior descompression and fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis . Eur Spine J. 2005;14:55-60.

  28. Johnsson KE, Willner S, Jonson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1986;11:107-110.

  29. Herkowitz HN, Kurtz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:802-808.

  30. Mardjetko SM, Connoly PJ, Shott S. Degenerative Lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993. Spine. 1994:19 (sup):2256-2265.

  31. Fischgrund JS, Mckay M, HerkowitzHN, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine.1997; 22:2807-2812.

  32. Parisini PM. Di Silvestre S, Giacomini T Greggi G, Bakaloudis G, Abati L. A comparison of three surgical techniques for lumbar fusion: cages alone, pedicular screws and cages and pedicular screws alone. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87Br: supp II:194-195.

  33. Dr. Hey Hwee Weng Dennis, Hwan Tak Hee. Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity: Surgical options of PLIF, TLIF and MI-TLIF. Indian J Orthop. 2010;44(2):159-162.

  34. McAfee, DeVine, The indications for Interbody Fusion Cages in the Traetment of Spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2005;30:65:S60-S65.

  35. Juan C.Rodriguez – Olaverri, Nicholas C. Zimick. Comparing the Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Pedicular Transvertebral Screw Fixacion of the Lumbosacral Spine in Spondylolisthesis versus Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fuison (TLIF) With Posterior Fixacion Using Anterior Cages. Spine. 2008;33:1977-1981.

  36. Abbushi, Cabraja. The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(11):1621-1628.

  37. Koichiro Okuyama, Tadato Kido. PLIF With A Titanium Cage and Excised Facet Joint Bone for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis – In Augmentation With a Pedicle Screw. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20:53-59.

  38. Jie Zhao, Xinwei Wang, Tiesheng Hou and Shisheng He. One Versus Two Bak Fusion Cages in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion to L4-L5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2002;27:2753-2757.

  39. Lee C, Dorcil J, Radomisli TE. Nonunion of the spine: a review. Clin Orthop. 2004; 419:71-75.

  40. Kohles SS, Kohles DA, Karp AP, et al. Time-dependent surgical outcomes following cauda equina sindrome diagnosis : coments on a meta – analysis. Spine. 2004;25:1515-1522.

  41. Throckmorton T, Hillbrand A, et al. The impact of adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine. 2003;28:2546-2550.

  42. Ghiselli G. Wang JC, Bathia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1497-1503.

  43. Ogilvie JW. Complications in spondylolisthesis surgery. Spine. 2005;30:97-101.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com