Effect of osteoporosis on the clinical and radiological outcomes following one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion

被引:70
|
作者
Cho, Jae Hwan [1 ]
Hwang, Chang Ju [1 ]
Kim, Hyojune [1 ]
Joo, Youn-Suk [1 ]
Lee, Dong-Ho [1 ]
Lee, Choon Sung [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Orthoped Surg, 388-1,PungNap 2 Dong, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION; BONE-MINERAL DENSITY; INSERTIONAL TORQUE; CAGE SUBSIDENCE; POSTEROLATERAL FUSION; SURGERY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SPINE; AUGMENTATION; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jos.2018.06.009
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: Cage subsidence or pedicle screw loosening following lumbar fusion surgery is frequently reported in osteoporotic patients. However, few studies have analyzed clinical as well as radiological outcomes after such surgeries as a function of bone mineral density. We aimed to evaluate the impact of osteoporosis on the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods: Fifty-five non-osteoporotic (T-score >= -1.0) and 31 osteoporotic (T-score <= -2.5) patients who underwent one-level PLIF were followed up for >2 years. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) parameters were assessed. Fusion success was identified with dynamic plain radiographs and computed tomography. Pedicle screw loosening and cage subsidence were evaluated. The clinical and radiological parameters were compared between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic patients. Subgroup analysis was performed on cage subsidence or screw loosening. Results: Although VAS score for back pain was higher in osteoporotic patients than in non-osteoporotic patients at 6 months postoperatively (3.3 vs. 2.2, P = 0.062), this difference disappeared at 1 year postoperatively (2.9 vs. 2.5, P = 0.606). However, no differences were noted between the groups in ODI and EQ-5D grades. Cage subsidence (65.4% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001) and screw loosening rates (32.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.029) were significantly higher in osteoporotic patients than in non-osteoporotic patients, but fusion rate did not differ between the groups. Although clinical outcomes did not differ between those who had cage subsidence or screw loosening and those who did not, fusion rate was lower in those who showed screw loosening than those who did not (71.4% vs. 93.9%, P = 0.038). Conclusions: Higher cage subsidence and pedicle screw loosening rates in osteoporotic patients did not significantly affect the clinical outcomes, but screw loosening, which occurred more frequently in older patients, significantly reduced the fusion success rate. Thus, PLIF procedure may be a good surgical treatment option to achieve good clinical outcomes, even in osteoporotic patients despite higher rates of cage subsidence and pedicle screw loosening. However, surgeons should monitor screw loosening because of its significant association with non-union. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
引用
收藏
页码:870 / 877
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up
    Park, Man-Kyu
    Park, Soo-An
    Son, Sang-Kyu
    Park, Weon-Wook
    Choi, Seung-Hyun
    NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW, 2019, 42 (03) : 753 - 761
  • [22] Clinical and radiologic outcomes of single-level direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion in patients with osteopenia
    Jung, Jong-myung
    Chung, Chun Kee
    Kim, Chi Heon
    Yang, Seung Heon
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2019, 64 : 180 - 186
  • [23] Effectiveness of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in a Patient Undergoing a One-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Report
    Michael, Mark
    Stark, Michael
    Woods, Barrett
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (02)
  • [24] Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease
    Liu, Zhengping
    Wang, Siyu
    Li, Tao
    Chen, Si
    Li, Ying
    Xie, Wei
    Tang, Jin
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2024, 19 (01)
  • [25] The Research on Spinopelvic Parameters and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of
    Yang, Pengchao
    Dong, Yimin
    Xu, Yong
    Kang, Honglei
    Li, Feng
    Guan, Hanfeng
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 190 : E841 - E850
  • [26] Metabolic syndrome increases risk for perioperative outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    He, Xiaoqi
    Fei, Qiaoman
    Sun, Tianwei
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (38) : E21786
  • [27] Minimally Invasive Approach versus Traditional Open Approach for One Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ntoukas, V.
    Mueller, A.
    MINIMALLY INVASIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2010, 53 (01) : 21 - 24
  • [28] Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion
    Cho, Jae Hwan
    Hwang, Chang Ju
    Lee, Dong-Ho
    Lee, Choon Sung
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2021, 22 (01)
  • [29] One-Level or Multilevel Interbody Fusion for Multilevel Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Prospective Randomized Control Study with a 4-Year Follow-Up
    Li, Tiefeng
    Shi, Lei
    Luo, Yibin
    Chen, Deyu
    Chen, Yu
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 110 : E815 - E822
  • [30] Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis Preoperative Diagnosis and Surgical Strategy
    Watanabe, Kei
    Yamazaki, Akiyoshi
    Morita, Osamu
    Sano, Atsuki
    Katsumi, Keiichi
    Ohashi, Masayuki
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2011, 24 (03): : 137 - 141