The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) was conducted between 2006 and 2012 at five public and two private hospitals. Six centres participated in this two-year MRI follow-up. We randomized 222 patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent levels into two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion. The presence or absence of a preoperative spondylolisthesis was noted. A new stenosis on two-year MRI was used as the primary outcome, defined as a dural sac cross-sectional area ≤ 75 mm2 at the operated level (restenosis) and/or at the level above (proximal adjacent level stenosis).Aims
Methods
We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.Aims
Methods
We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) compared with bone graft when used specifically for revision spinal fusion surgery secondary to pseudarthrosis. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched using defined search terms. The primary outcome measure was spinal fusion, assessed as success or failure in accordance with radiograph, MRI or CT scan review at 24-month follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was time to fusion.Objectives
Methods
Many studies have investigated the kinematics of the lumbar spine and the morphological features of the lumbar discs. However, the segment-dependent immediate changes of the lumbar intervertebral space height during flexion-extension motion are still unclear. This study examined the changes of intervertebral space height during flexion-extension motion of lumbar specimens. First, we validated the accuracy and repeatability of a custom-made mechanical loading equipment set-up. Eight lumbar specimens underwent CT scanning in flexion, neural, and extension positions by using the equipment set-up. The changes in the disc height and distance between adjacent two pedicle screw entry points (DASEP) of the posterior approach at different lumbar levels (L3/4, L4/5 and L5/S1) were examined on three-dimensional lumbar models, which were reconstructed from the CT images.Objectives
Methods
To employ a simple and fast method to evaluate those patients with neurological deficits and misplaced screws in relatively safe lumbosacral spine, and to determine if it is necessary to undertake revision surgery. A total of 316 patients were treated by fixation of lumbar and lumbosacral transpedicle screws at our institution from January 2011 to December 2012. We designed the criteria for post-operative revision scores of pedicle screw malpositioning (PRSPSM) in the lumbosacral canal. We recommend the revision of the misplaced pedicle screw in patients with PRSPSM = 5′ as early as possible. However, patients with PRSPSM < 5′ need to follow the next consecutive assessment procedures. A total of 15 patients were included according to at least three-stage follow-up.Objectives
Methods
