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
  • [31] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Comment
    Alday, R
    NEUROCIRUGIA, 2001, 12 (05): : 455 - 455
  • [32] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Response
    Okuda, Shinya
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2007, 6 (02) : 195 - 195
  • [33] POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION UPDATED
    CLOWARD, RB
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1985, (193) : 16 - 19
  • [34] THE FAILED POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION
    WETZEL, FT
    LAROCCA, H
    SPINE, 1991, 16 (07) : 839 - 845
  • [35] Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)
    Liu, Gang
    Liu, Weixi
    Jin, Danjie
    Yan, Penglei
    Yang, Zhicheng
    Liu, Ruiping
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 23 (02): : 271 - 280
  • [36] Midline lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the surgical technique and outcomes
    Alentado, Vincent J.
    Mobasser, Dillon
    Mobasser, Jean-Pierre
    Potts, Eric A.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2023, 39 (04) : 462 - 470
  • [37] Stand-alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody, Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody, and Anterior/Posterior Fusion: Analysis of Fusion Outcomes and Costs
    Bozzio, Anthony E.
    Johnson, Christopher R.
    Fattor, Jill A.
    Kleck, Christopher J.
    Patel, Vikas V.
    Burger, Evalina L.
    Noshchenko, Andriy
    Cain, Christopher M. J.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2018, 41 (05) : E655 - E662
  • [38] Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive surgery during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion/posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Heary, Robert F.
    Kaiser, Michael G.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 24 (03) : 413 - 414
  • [39] Comparison between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Han, Shao-Yu
    Xiao, Quan
    Zhu, Guo-Tai
    Dai, Jian
    Tang, Xiao-Ming
    Sun, Hai-Lang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (02): : 3932 - 3938
  • [40] Comparison between posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Katuch, V
    Grega, R.
    Knorovsky, K.
    Banoci, J.
    Katuchova, J.
    Sasala, M.
    Ivankova, H.
    Kapralova, P.
    BRATISLAVA MEDICAL JOURNAL-BRATISLAVSKE LEKARSKE LISTY, 2021, 122 (09): : 653 - 656