Radiological and Clinical Comparison of 1 Cage versus 2 Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with PEEK Cage and Local Bone Graft (PEEK Cage와 국소 조각골을 이용한 후방 추체간 유합술에서 한 개 Cage와 두 개 Cage 사용 후 방사선학적 및 임상적 결과 비교)

전득수; 신원주; 이경찬

Radiological and Clinical Comparison of 1 Cage versus 2 Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with PEEK Cage and Local Bone Graft

Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery
Abbr : J Kor Spine Sur
2009, 16(2), pp.104-111
Publisher : Korean Society Of Spine Surgery
Research Area : Medicine and Pharmacy > Orthopedic Surgery

전득수 ¹, 신원주 ¹, 이경찬 ¹

¹가천의과학대학교

Candidate

ABSTRACT

Study Design: This is a retrospective study. Objectives: We wanted to compare and evaluate the results of using one cage and two cages with local bone grafting for each segment when performing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Summary of Literature Review: Some authors have reported that unilateral one-caged PLIF with local bone grafting and posterior instrumentation was no difference from bilateral two-caged PLIF regard to the fusion rates and the radiologic or clinical results. Materials and Methods: From March 2005 to February 2006, PLIF was performed on 36 patients who had lumbar degenerative disease. They were categorized as the cases for which one cage was used for a segment and the cases for which 2 cages were used for a segment. The clinical and radiological results in each group were compared. Results: There was complete union in 11 segments with using one cage (55%), complete union in 12 segments using two cages (77%) and incomplete unions in 9 segments with using one cage (45%) and incomplete union in 4 segments with using 2 cages (25%), and there wasn't any case of nonunion (p>0.05). The postoperative changes of the intervertebral disc space were a 2.0 mm increase with using one cage and a 2.2 mm increase with using two cages, yet these values decreased by 0.4 mm and 0.3 mm, respectively, on the last follow-up. The mean operation time was 89 minutes for one segment with one cage and 105 minutes for one segment with two cages. The blood loss was a mean of 602 ml with one cage and 802 ml with two cages (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the one cage group and the two cages group for the Kirkadly-Willis criteria. Conclusion: Posterior decompression and PLIF with one PEEK cage for treating degenerative lumbar disease was more effective for the operation time and the amount of blood loss than that with two cages, but the fusion rate, the alteration of the intervertebral disc space, the improvement of pain and the clinical results were no different. However, these results are from short term follow up, so continuous follow up will be necessary in the future for assessing the long term prognosis.

KEYWORDS

Posterior lumbar inter body fusion, PEEK cage, One cage, Two cages

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

[journal] Cloward RB / 1953 / The treatment of ruptured intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. Indication, operative techniques and after care / J Neurosurg 10 : 154~168

[journal] Bagby GW / 1988 / Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant / Orthopedics 11 : 931~934

[journal] Lee JC / 2006 / Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using titanium cages and morselized local bone autograft / J of Korean Soc Spine Surg 13 : 284~291

[journal] Guy RF / 2007 / Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages / J Spinal Disord Tech 20 : 60~65

[journal] 이종서 / 2004 / Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Approaches for Posterior Lumbar Interbody fuwion / 대한정형외과학회지 / 대한정형외과학회 39(6) : 642~647

[book] Harms J / 1997 / True spondylolisthesis reduction and more segmental fusion in spondylolisthesis (In: Textbook of Spinal Surgery) / Lippincott-Raven : 1337~1347

[journal] Closkey RF / 1993 / Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area / Spine 18 : 1011~1015

[journal] Ames CP / 2005 / Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels / Spine 30 : 562~566

[journal] Kettler A / 2005 / In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages / Spine 30 : 665~670

[journal] Molinari RW / 2003 / Are 2 cages needed with instrumented PLIF? A comparison of 1 versus 2 interbody cages in a military population / Am J Orthop 32 : 337~343

[journal] Harris BM / 2004 / Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine / Spine 29 : 65~70

[journal] Wang ST / 2005 / Posterior instrumentation reduces differences in spine stability as a result of different cage orientations: an in vitro study / Spine 30 : 62~67

[journal] Javernick MA / 2003 / Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: unilateral versus bilateral disk removal-an in vivo study / Am J Orthop 32 : 344~348

[book] David S / 2004 / Mater techniques in orthopeadic surgery; The spine 2nd ed / Williams & Wilkins Co : 307~

[journal] Prolo DJ / 1986 / Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions / Spine 11 : 601~606

[book] Serhan H / 1997 / Presentation of mechanical testing of the Brantigan cage: In the Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel Meeting of the Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration / Bethesda

[journal] Humphreys SC / 2001 / Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion / Spine 26 : 567~571

[confproc] Vadapalli S / 2005 / PEEK spacers promote better bone graft fusion and lesser subsidence across a spinal segment as compared to titanium spacers- A biomechanical rationale / Paper presented at: 51st Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society : 20~23

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.03