Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Prospective Monocentric Study

被引:0
|
作者
Stulik, J. [1 ,2 ]
Adamek, S. [2 ]
Barna, M. [1 ]
Kasprikova, N. [3 ]
Polanecky, O. [2 ]
Kryl, J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Spondylochirurg Oddeleni FN Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
[2] III Chirurg Klin 1 LF UK FN Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
[3] Ustav Biofyziky Informatiky 1 LF UK, Prague, Czech Republic
关键词
AxiaLIF; lumbar spine; spinal fusion; axial lumbar fixation; BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FOLLOW-UP; L5-S1; COMPLICATIONS; FIXATION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; STABILIZATION; IMPLANT;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic results in the patients who underwent L5-S1 fixation using the technique of percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). MATERIAL The study comprised 23 patients, 11 women and 12 men, who ranged from age of 21 to 63 years, with an average of 48.2 years. In all patients surgical posterior stabilisation involving the L5-S1 segment had previously been done. The initial indications for surgery were L5-S1 spondylolisthesis in 20 and L5-S1 spondylosis and stenosis in three patients. METHODS The AxiaLIF technique for L5-S1 fixation was indicated in overweight patients and in those after repeated abdominal or retroperitoneal surgery. A suitable position and shape of the sacrum or lumbosacral junction was another criterion. The patients were evaluated between 26 and 56 months (average, 40.4 months) after primary surgery and, on the basis of CT and radiographic findings, bone union and lumbosacral junction stability were assessed. The clinical outcome was investigated using the ODI and VAS systems and the results were statistically analysed by the Wilcoxon test for paired samples with statistical significance set at a level of 0.05. RESULTS The average VAS value was 6.6 before surgery and, after surgery, 5.2 at three months, 4.2 at six months, 3.1 at one year, 2.9 at two years and 2.1 at three years (n=18). At two post-operative years, improvement in the VAS value by 56.1% was recorded. The average pre-operative ODI value was 25.1; the post-operative values were 17.0 at six months, 12.3 at one year, 10.6 at two years and 8.2 at three years (n=18). At two years after surgery the ODI value improved by 57.8%. To the question concerning their willingness to undergo, with acquired experience, surgery for the same diagnosis, 21 patients (91.3%) gave an affirmative answer. Neither screw breakage nor neurovascular damage or rectal injury was found. CT scans showed complete interbody bone fusion in 22 of the 23 patients (95.6%), In one patient the finding was not clear. Also, posterolateral fusion was achieved in all but one patients (95.6%). A stable L5-S1 segment was found in all patients at all follow-up intervals. The improvement in both VAS and ODI values was statistically significant. DISCUSSION In addition to indications usual in degenerative disc disease, overweight patients, those who had repeated trans- or retroperitoneal surgery in the L5-S1 region or who underwent long posterior fixation to stabilise the caudal margin of instrumentation are indicated for the AxiaLIF procedure. The clinical results of our study are in agreement with the conclusions of other studies and are similar to the outcomes of surgery using other types of fusion or dynamic stabilisation for this diagnosis. The high rate of fusion in our group is affected by use of a rigid transpedicular fixator together with posterolateral arthrodesis. On the other hand, no negative effects of only synthetic bone applied to interbody space were recorded. CONCLUSIONS The percutaneous axial pre-sacral approach to the L5-S1 interbody space with application of a double-treaded screw is another option for the management of this much strained segment. The technique is useful particularly when contraindications for conventional surgical procedures are present in patients with anatomical anomalies, in overweight patients or in those who have had repeated surgery in the region. Clinical outcomes and the success rate for L5-S1 bone fusion are comparable with conventional techniques. Complications are rare but their treatment is difficult.
引用
收藏
页码:203 / 211
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Patil, Suresh S.
    Lindley, Emily M.
    Patel, Vikas V.
    Burger, Evalina L.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2010, 33 (12)
  • [2] The Relevant Anatomy of the Approach for Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Li, Xiangming
    Zhang, Yusong
    Hou, Zhidian
    Wu, Tao
    Ding, Zihai
    SPINE, 2012, 37 (04) : 266 - 271
  • [3] Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion Clinical article
    Lindley, Emily M.
    McCullough, Matthew A.
    Burger, Evalina L.
    Brown, Courtney W.
    Patel, Vikas V.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2011, 15 (03) : 273 - 279
  • [4] A Comparative Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Pawar, Abhijit Y.
    Hughes, Alexander P.
    Sama, Andrew A.
    Girardi, Federico P.
    Lebl, Darren R.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (05) : 668 - 674
  • [5] Fusion Assessment by MRI in Comparison With CT in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Study
    Kitchen, David
    Rao, Prashanth J.
    Zotti, Mario
    Woodman, Richard
    Sampson, Matthew J.
    Allison, Dale
    Phan, Kevin
    Selby, Michael
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 8 (06) : 586 - 592
  • [6] Prospective Study of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Either Interbody Graft or Interbody Cage in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Sivaraman, A.
    Altaf, Farhaan
    Jalgaonkar, Azal
    Kakkar, Rahul
    Sirigiri, P. B. R.
    Howieson, A.
    Crawford, Robert J.
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (08): : E467 - E471
  • [7] Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Sheng-Dan Jiang
    Jiang-Wei Chen
    Lei-Sheng Jiang
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2012, 132 : 1259 - 1266
  • [8] Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Jiang, Sheng-Dan
    Chen, Jiang-Wei
    Jiang, Lei-Sheng
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2012, 132 (09) : 1259 - 1266
  • [9] Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) approach for adult scoliosis
    Oheneba Boachie-Adjei
    Woojin Cho
    Akilah B. King
    European Spine Journal, 2013, 22 : 225 - 231
  • [10] Efficacy of lumbar orthoses after posterior lumbar interbody fusion-a prospective randomized study
    Fujiwara, Hiroyasu
    Makino, Takahiro
    Yonenobu, Kazuo
    Moriguchi, Yu
    Oda, Takenori
    Kaito, Takashi
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (15)