Curative effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease and changes in adjacent segment quantitative score

Zhuang,Yan; Zhou,Feng; Zhang,Yunqin; Jin,Zheng

doi:10.3892/etm.2018.6159

Curative effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease and changes in adjacent segment quantitative score

Authors:
- Yan Zhuang
- Feng Zhou
- Yunqin Zhang
- Zheng Jin
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, The Affiliated Jiangyin Hospital of Southeast University Medical College, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214400, P.R. China
Published online on: May 11, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6159
Pages: 161-166

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Curative effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease and changes in adjacent segment quantitative score was investigated. A total of 86 patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease were randomly selected and divided into control group (n=43) and observation group (n=43). The control group was treated with posterolateral lumbar fusion, while the observation group was treated with PLIF. The observation group had a significantly longer operation time and shorter hospitalization time compared with the control group (P<0.05). The excellent-good rate of treatment in the observation group (90.69%) was obviously higher than that in the control group (62.79%) (P<0.05). The levels of creatine phosphokinase in the two groups were significantly increased at 1, 3 and 5 days after operation (P<0.05), and reached the peak at 1 day after operation and returned to normal basically at 7 days after operation. Oswestry disability index in the observation group at 1, 6 and 12 months after operation were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the MRI-T2 relaxation time of multifidus muscle at 3 months after operation between the two groups (P>0.05). The grade I and II interbody fusion rates in the observation group at 12 months after operation were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The mean spinal canal areas and adjacent segment quantitative scores in the two groups after operation were significantly improved compared with those before operation, and they were improved more obviously in the observation group than those in the control group (P<0.05). PLIF has a more definite short-term curative effect and a higher interbody fusion rate in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease, which is more conducive to promoting the postoperative rehabilitation of patients and slowing down the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration.

View Figures

View References

1	Kreiner DS, Shaffer WO, Baisden JL, Gilbert TJ, Summers JT, Toton JF, Hwang SW, Mendel RC and Reitman CA: North American Spine Society: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). Spine J. 13:734–743. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Falco FJ, Kaye AD and Hirsch JA: Do epidural injections provide short- and long-term relief for lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 473:1940–1956. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Shamji MF, Mroz T, Hsu W and Chutkan N: Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Neurosurgery. 77 Suppl 4:S68–S74. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Shin JS, Oh SH and Cho PG: Surgical outcome of a zero-profile device comparing with stand-alone cage and anterior cervical plate with iliac bone graft in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Korean J Spine. 11:169–177. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Hikata T, Kamata M and Furukawa M: Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and efficacy of simultaneous decompression surgery for symptomatic adjacent segment disease. J Spinal Disord Tech. 27:70–75. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Kim YJ, Hung M, Cheh G and Koester LA: Does correction of preoperative coronal imbalance make a difference in outcomes of adult patients with deformity? Spine. 38:476–483. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Urrutia J, Besa P, Campos M, Cikutovic P, Cabezon M, Molina M and Cruz JP: The Pfirrmann classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration: An independent inter- and intra-observer agreement assessment. Eur Spine J. 25:2728–2733. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Williams FM and Sambrook PN: Neck and back pain and intervertebral disc degeneration: Role of occupational factors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 25:69–79. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Li Z, Li F, Yu S, Ma H, Chen Z, Zhang H and Fu Q: Two-year follow-up results of the Isobar TTL Semi-Rigid Rod System for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. J Clin Neurosci. 20:394–399. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Cui YZ, Yang XH, Liu PF, Wang B and Chen WJ: Preliminary study on diagnosis of lumbar disc degeneration with magnetic resonance T1p, T2 mapping and DWI quantitative detection technologies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 20:3344–3350. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
11	Choudhri TF, Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, Watters WC III, Dailey AT, Resnick DK, Sharan A, et al: Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: Radiographic assessment of fusion status. J Neurosurg Spine. 21:23–30. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Yu SW, Yang SC, Ma CH, Wu CH, Yen CY and Tu YK: Comparison of Dynesys posterior stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis L4L5. Acta Orthop Belg. 78:230–239. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
13	Kong LD, Meng LC, Wang LF, Shen Y, Wang P and Shang ZK: Evaluation of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Exp Ther Med. 6:852–856. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Berg S and Tullberg T: Letter to the editor regarding Mannion, Brox, Fairbank. Comparison of spinal fusion and nonoperative treatment in patients with chronic low back pain: Long-term follow-up of three randomized controlled trials. Spine J. 14:10872014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Vieweg U and Sola S: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an interbody fusion spacer or cageManual of Spine Surgery. Vieweg U and Grochulla F: Springer; Berlin, Heidelberg: pp. 377–384. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22682-3_53 View Article : Google Scholar
16	Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW and Shin BJ: Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine. 39:E339–E345. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Ong KL, Auerbach JD, Lau E, Schmier J and Ochoa JA: Perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with lumbar spinal fusion in older patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 36:E52014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, Zhou ZJ, Wang JY, Zhao FD and Fan SW: Effect and possible mechanism of muscle-splitting approach on multifidus muscle injury and atrophy after posterior lumbar spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 95(e192): 1–9. 2013.PubMed/NCBI
19	Ma C, Wu JB, Zhao M, Dai WX, Wu DH, Wang ZH, Feng J, Liu C, Zhao QH and Tian JW: Posterior interbody fusion versus improved transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for aged spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 92:620–623. 2012.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI