Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Results after anterior–posterior lumbar spinal fusion: 2–5 years follow-up

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Between 1991 and 1998, we treated 72 patients with fusion of the lumbar spine using posterior pedicle screw fixation followed by anterior retroperitoneal insertion of a titanium cage filled with autogenous bone graft. All patients had chronic low back pain after failed conservative treatment. We were able to review 54 patients with a mean follow-up of 51 (24–97) months. The mean Oswestry low back pain disability score improved from 56.8 preoperative to postoperative 29.8 and 31.2 at follow-up (p<0.05). The mean visual analog pain intensity scale improved from 8.3 to 4.0 postoperative and 4.8 at follow-up (p<0.05). The results demonstrate that circumferential lumbar fusion can be an option for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Résumé

Entre 1991 et 1998 nous avons traité 72 malades par fusion du rachis lombaire en utilisant une fixation postérieure par vissage pédiculaire suivie d’une insertion antérieure rétropéritonéale d’une cage en titane remplie d’os autogène. Tous les malades avaient une lombalgie chronique après échec d’un traitement conservateur. Nous avons revu 54 malades avec une moyenne de suivi de 51 mois (24–97). Le score moyen d› Oswestry a été amélioré de 56,8 en préopératoire à 29,8 en postopératoire et 31,2 au dernier recul (p<0,05). La moyenne de la valeur analogique visuelle de la douleur a été amélioré de 8,3 à 4,0 en postopératoire et à 4,8 au suivi (p<0,05). Les résultats démontrent que la fusion circonférentielle lombaire peut être une option pour le traitement des lombalgies chroniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersen T, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Buenger CE (2003) Pain 5 years after instrumented and non instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 12:393–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years. Spine 29:455–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Larsen M, Thomsen K, Bunger CE (2002) Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomised clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine 27:1269–1277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP (2002) Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel–Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 27:2674–2683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Deguchi M, Rapoff AJ, Zdeblick TA (1998) Posterolateral fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: analysis of fusion rate and clinical results. J Spinal Disord 11:459–464

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eck KR, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Gilula LA, Lashgari CJ, Riew KD (2000) Radiographic assessment of anterior titanium mesh cages. J Spinal Disord 13:501–509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fritzell P, Haegg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2001) Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 26:2521–2532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fritzell P, Haegg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques. Spine 27:1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fritzell P, Haegg O, Nordwall A (2003) Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: a comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. Eur Spine J 12:178–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gehrchen PM, Dahl B, Katonis P, Blyme P, Tondevold E, Kiaer T (2002) No difference in clinical outcome after posterolateral lumbar fusion between patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis and those with degenerative disc disease using pedicle screw instrumentation: a comparative study of 112 patients with 4 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 11:423–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H, Woody J, Found E, Spratt K (2003) A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine 13:1390–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Greenough CG, Petersen MD, Hadlow S, Fraser RD (1998) Instrumented posterolateral fusion. Spine 23:1918–1925

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanley EN, David SM (1999) Lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:716–730

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanley EN, Levy JA (1989) Surgical treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Analysis of variables influencing results. Spine 14:48–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Madan SS, Boeree NR (2003) Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 12:567–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McAfee C (1999) Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:859–880

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sasso RC, Burkus JK, LeHuec JC (2003) Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 28:1023–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shah R, Mohammed S, Saifuddin A, Taylor B (2003) Comparison of plain radiographs with CT scan to evaluate interbody fusion following the use of titanium interbody cages and transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J 12:385–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Thomas Niemeyer & Albert Schulze Bövingloh

  2. Centre for Spinal Surgery and Scoliosis Centre, Klinikum Neustadt, Am Kiebitzberg 10, 23370, Neustadt, Germany

    Henry Halm

  3. Spine Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Münster, 48129, Münster, Germany

    Ulf Liljenqvist

Authors
  1. Thomas Niemeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Schulze Bövingloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henry Halm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulf Liljenqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Niemeyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Niemeyer, T., Bövingloh, A.S., Halm, H. et al. Results after anterior–posterior lumbar spinal fusion: 2–5 years follow-up. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 28, 298–302 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-004-0577-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-004-0577-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation