» Articles » PMID: 25694930

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) Versus Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) Implants for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Overview
Date 2015 Feb 20
PMID 25694930
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Degenerative disc disease is common and debilitating for many patients. If conservative extensive care fails, anterior lumbar interbody fusion has proven to be an alternative form of surgical management. The Stabilis Stand Alone Cage(SAC) was introduced as a method to obtain stability and fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Stabilis Stand Alone Cage (SAC) is comparable in safety and efficacy to the Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) device.

Methods: As part of a prospective, randomized, controlled FDA trial, 73 patients underwent anterior interbody fusion using either the SAC(56%) or the BAK device (44%).

Results: Background characteristics were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the SAC and BAK groups in mean operative time or mean blood loss during surgery. Adverse event rates did not differ between the groups. Assessment of plain radiographs could not confirm solid fusion in 63% of control and 71% of study patients. Functional scores from Owestry and SF-36 improved in both groups by the two-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between the SAC and BAK patients with respect to outcome.

Conclusions: Both the Stabilis Stand Alone Cage and the BAK Cage provided satisfactory improvement in function and pain relief, despite less than expected radiographic fusion rates. The apparent incongruency between fusion rates and functional outcomes suggests that either radiographs underestimate the true incidence of fusion, or that patients are obtaining good pain relief and improved function despite a lower rate of fusion than previously reported. This was a Level III study.

Citing Articles

Is there a variance in complication types associated with ALIF approaches? A systematic review.

Feeley A, Feeley I, Clesham K, Butler J Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021; 163(11):2991-3004.

PMID: 34546435 PMC: 8520518. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-021-05000-0.

References
1.
Zdeblick T, Phillips F . Interbody cage devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(15 Suppl):S2-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000076841.93570.78. View

2.
Dennis S, Watkins R, Landaker S, Dillin W, Springer D . Comparison of disc space heights after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989; 14(8):876-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-198908000-00019. View

3.
Zhao J, Wang X, Hou T, He S . One versus two BAK fusion cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion to L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis: a randomized, controlled prospective study in 25 patients with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(24):2753-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200212150-00003. View

4.
Hollowell J, Vollmer D, Wilson C, Pintar F, Yoganandan N . Biomechanical analysis of thoracolumbar interbody constructs. How important is the endplate?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(9):1032-6. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199605010-00007. View

5.
Brodke D, DICK J, Kunz D, McCabe R, Zdeblick T . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997; 22(1):26-31. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199701010-00005. View