Outcomes of Posterior Facet Versus Pedicle Screw Fixation of Circumferential Fusion: a Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2013 Nov 8

PMID 24197480

Citations 4

Authors

Glenn R Buttermann

Tague M Thorson

William J Mullin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation.

Method: A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and >1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging.

Results: Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods >1 year (p < 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group.

Conclusion: One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.

Citing Articles

Final Long-Term Reporting from a Randomized Controlled IDE Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: 7-Year Results.

Radcliff K, Zigler J, Braxton E, Buttermann G, Coric D, Derman P Int J Spine Surg. 2021; 15(4):612-632.

PMID: 34266934 PMC: 8375685. DOI: 10.14444/8083.

Value of single-level circumferential fusion: a 10-year prospective outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation.

Buttermann G, Hollmann S, Arpino J, Ferko N Eur Spine J. 2019; 29(2):360-373.

PMID: 31583439 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06165-0.

A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques.

Wang X, Borgman B, Vertuani S, Nilsson J BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1):446.

PMID: 28655308 PMC: 5488344. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2398-6.

The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical research" articles in the European Spine Journal 2014.

Mulholland R Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(1):22-30.

PMID: 25556155 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3718-8.

References

Battie M, Niemelainen R, Gibbons L, Dhillon S . Is level- and side-specific multifidus asymmetry a marker for lumbar disc pathology?. Spine J. 2012; 12(10):932-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.08.020. View

Freeman B, Licina P, Mehdian S . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with instrumented postero-lateral fusion: 5-year results in 60 patients. Eur Spine J. 2000; 9(1):42-6. PMC: 3611345. DOI: 10.1007/s005860050007. View

Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H . Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(10):1023-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199905150-00017. View

Remes V, Lamberg T, Tervahartiala P, Helenius I, Schlenzka D, Yrjonen T . Long-term outcome after posterolateral, anterior, and circumferential fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents: magnetic resonance imaging findings after average of 17-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(21):2491-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000239218.38489.db. View

Kikuchi Y, Nakamura T, Takayama S, Horiuchi Y, Toyama Y . MR imaging in the diagnosis of denervated and reinnervated skeletal muscles: experimental study in rats. Radiology. 2003; 229(3):861-7. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2293020904. View

Mura P, Costaglioli M, Piredda M, Caboni S, Casula S . TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 Suppl 1:S57-60. PMC: 3087043. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1761-2. View

Taylor H, McGregor A, Medhi-Zadeh S, Richards S, Kahn N, Zadeh J . The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(24):2758-62. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200212150-00004. View

Tuli S, Eichler M, Woodard E . Comparison of perioperative morbidity in translaminar facet versus pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics. 2005; 28(8):773-8. DOI: 10.3928/0147-7447-20050801-14. View

Habib A, Smith Z, Lawton C, Fessler R . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge. Minim Invasive Surg. 2012; 2012:657342. PMC: 3420139. DOI: 10.1155/2012/657342. View

10.

Hoy K, Bunger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen E, Li H . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(9):2022-9. PMC: 3777065. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2. View

11.

Gille O, Jolivet E, Dousset V, Degrise C, Obeid I, Vital J . Erector spinae muscle changes on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(11):1236-41. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31805471fe. View

12.

Hsieh P, Koski T, OShaughnessy B, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S . Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7(4):379-86. DOI: 10.3171/SPI-07/10/379. View

13.

Kim K, Lee S, Suk K, Bae S . The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(6):712-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000202533.05906.ea. View

14.

Gejo R, Kawaguchi Y, Kondoh T, Tabuchi E, Matsui H, Torii K . Magnetic resonance imaging and histologic evidence of postoperative back muscle injury in rats. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(8):941-6. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200004150-00008. View

15.

Beaubien B, Mehbod A, Kallemeier P, Lew W, Buttermann G, Transfeldt E . Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(19):E406-12. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000141187.53366.9b. View

16.

Glassman S, Gornet M, Branch C, Polly Jr D, Peloza J, Schwender J . MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J. 2006; 6(1):21-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.09.004. View

17.

Bendix T, Sorensen J, Henriksson G, Bolstad J, Narvestad E, Jensen T . Lumbar modic changes-a comparison between findings at low- and high-field magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(20):1756-62. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318257ffce. View

18.

Kamath S, Venkatanarasimha N, Walsh M, Hughes P . MRI appearance of muscle denervation. Skeletal Radiol. 2008; 37(5):397-404. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-007-0409-0. View

19.

Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M . The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(5):568-74. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199304000-00008. View

20.

Razi A, Spivak J, Kummer F, Hersh D, Goldstein J . Biomechanical comparison of translaminar screw versus pedicle screw supplementation of anterior femoral ring allografts in one-level lumbar spine fusion. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011; 69(4):298-302. View