Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients

被引:165
|
作者
Okuda, Shinya [1 ]
Oda, Takenori [1 ]
Miyauchi, Akira [1 ]
Haku, Takamitsu [1 ]
Yamamoto, Tomio [1 ]
Iwasaki, Motoki [1 ]
机构
[1] Osaka Rosai Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Osaka 5918025, Japan
来源
关键词
ADJACENT-SEGMENT DEGENERATION; PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION; SPINAL-FUSION; RISK-FACTORS; END-PLATE; FOLLOW-UP; COMPLICATIONS; CAGE; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; INSTRUMENTATION;
D O I
10.2106/JBJS.F.00186
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
Background: We are aware of no reports on the surgical results of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiographic results of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in patients older than seventy years of age and compare them with results in younger patients. We also investigated the association between the clinical and radiographic results. Methods: The study included 101 patients who had been followed for at least three years after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws for the treatment of L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. The average follow-up period was fifty months. The patients were divided into two groups according to their age at the time of the operation: Group 1 included thirty-one patients who were seventy years of age or older (average age, seventy-four years) at the time of the operation, and Group 2 included seventy patients who were less than seventy years old (average age, fifty-nine years). Preoperative and postoperative status (according to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system) and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Postoperative radiographic features, including fusion status and segmental lordosis, were also examined. Results: No significant differences in preoperative and postoperative scores were observed between the two age groups, with the numbers available. General complications were found in Group 1. However, the prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration in Group 1 was lower than that in Group 2. The radiographic results revealed no significant difference in the prevalence of segmental lordosis, with the numbers available. There was no nonunion in either group. Although the prevalence of either collapsed union or delayed union in Group 1 was significantly higher than that in Group 2 (p = 0.034), the fusion results such as union in situ, collapsed union, and delayed union did not appear to affect the postoperative clinical results in this study. Conclusions: No obvious differences in the clinical results were observed between the age groups with the numbers available. Postoperative adjacent segment degeneration was less frequent and collapsed union and delayed union were more common in the elderly group. The fusion results did not appear to affect the postoperative clinical results in this study.
引用
收藏
页码:2714 / 2720
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Surgical site infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and instrumentation in patients with lumbar degenerative disease
    Pei, Honglei
    Wang, Haiying
    Chen, Meiyun
    Ma, Lei
    Liu, Guobin
    Ding, Wenyuan
    INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL, 2021, 18 (05) : 608 - 615
  • [22] Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Park, Chun-Kun
    Hur, Jung-Woo
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2019, 59 (06) : 222 - 230
  • [23] Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    You, Ki-Han
    Hyun, Jin-Tak
    Park, Sang-Min
    Kang, Min-Seok
    Cho, Samuel K.
    Park, Hyun-Jin
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [24] Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis
    Wu, Chin-Hsien
    Wong, Chak-Bor
    Chen, Lih-Huei
    Niu, Chi-Chien
    Tsai, Tung-Ting
    Chen, Wen-Jer
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2008, 21 (05): : 310 - 315
  • [25] Clinical Comparison of Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treating Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Yang, Lihui
    Du, Peng
    Zang, Lei
    An, Likun
    Liu, Wei
    Li, Jian
    Diao, Wenbo
    Gao, Jian
    Yan, Ming
    Zhu, Wenyi
    Yuan, Shuo
    Fan, Ning
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2025, 38 (03): : E212 - E220
  • [26] POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AND PLATES
    STEFFEE, AD
    SITKOWSKI, DJ
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1988, (227) : 99 - 102
  • [27] Advances in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Brislin, B
    Vaccaro, AR
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2002, 33 (02) : 367 - +
  • [28] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants
    Rickert, M.
    Arabmotlagh, M.
    Carstens, C.
    Behrbalk, E.
    Rauschmann, M.
    Fleege, C.
    ORTHOPADE, 2015, 44 (02): : 162 - 169
  • [29] Particular Features of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Kim, Jin Hak
    Ahn, Dong Ki
    Kim, Jin Woo
    Kim, Go We
    CLINICS IN ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, 2015, 7 (03) : 337 - 343
  • [30] Posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Madhu, Tiruveedhula S.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDICS, 2008, 22 (06): : 406 - 413