1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Posterior short-segment fixation with or without fusion for thoracolumbar burst fractures. a five to seven-year prospective randomized study. Long segment instrumentation of thoracolumbar burst fracture: fusion versus nonfusion. Posterior fixation of thoracolumbar burst fracture: short-segment pedicle fixation versus long-segment instrumentation. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Radiographic analysis of fusion progression following one-level cervical fusion with or without plate fixation. Choice of plate may affect outcomes for single versus multilevel ACDF: results of a prospective randomized single-blind trial.
A prospective randomized clinical study.
                To evaluate supplementary pedicle screw fixation (Cotrel-Dubousset) in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion.
                The rationale behind lumbar fusion is to eliminate pathologic motion to relieve pain. To improve fusion rates and to allow reduction, a rigid transpedicular screw fixation may be beneficial, but the positive effect of this may be counter-balanced by an increase in complications.
                The inclusion criteria were severe, chronic low back pain from spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2 or from primary or secondary degenerative segmental instability. One hundred thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive no instrumentation (n = 66) or Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation (n = 64) in posterolateral lumbar fusion. Variables were registered at the time of surgery and at 1 and 2 years after surgery.
                Follow-up was achieved in 97.7% of the patients. Fusion rates deduced from plain radiographs were not significantly different between instrumented and noninstrumented groups. The functional outcome assessed by the Dallas Pain Questionnaire improved significantly in both groups, and there were no significant differences in results between the two groups, except for significantly better (P < 0.06) functional outcome in relation to daily activities in the instrumented group when neural decompression had been performed. The global patients' satisfaction was 82% in the instrumented group versus 74% in the noninstrumented group (not significant). Fixation of instrumentation increased operation time, blood loss, and early reoperation rate significantly. Patients experienced only a few minor postoperative complications; none were major. Two infections appeared in the Cotrel-Dubousset group. Significant symptoms from misplacement of pedicle screws were seen in 4.8% of the instrumented patients.
                Lumbar posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation increases the operation time, blood loss, and reoperation rate, and leads to a significant risk of nerve injury. The functional outcome improves significantly with high patient satisfaction, with or without instrumentation. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in functional outcome and fusion rate. The only gain in functional outcome from instrumentation was found in the daily activity category in patients with supplementary neural decompression. The results of this study do not justify the general use of pedicle screw fixation alone as an adjunct to posterolateral lumbar fusion. One hundred, twenty-four patients undergoing lumbar or lumbosacral fusion for degenerative conditions were entered into a prospective study. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups. Group I underwent posterolateral fusion using autogenous bone graft. Group II had autogenous posterolateral fusions supplemented by a semi-rigid pedicle screw/plate fixation system (Luque II; Danek Medical, Memphis, Tennessee). Group III patients underwent posterolateral autogenous fusion with a rigid pedicle screw/rod fixation system (Texas Scottish Rite Hospital [TSRH]-Danek Medical, Memphis, Tennessee). All the patients were operated on by the same surgeon, identical bone grafting technique was used in all, and all were treated in an identical fashion postoperatively. Fusion status was determined from the anteroposterior, oblique, and flexion-extension radiographs obtained at 1 year. Clinical results were rated as excellent if the patients were pain-free and had returned to work; good if the patients had mild backache requiring non-narcotic analgesics and had returned to work; fair if continuing back pain prevented a return to work; or poor if the pain was worse than that which the patient experienced preoperatively or the patient required revision surgery. Nine patients who were originally assigned to Group II or Group III were placed in Group I intraoperatively. This change was due to the identification of severe osteopenia and the determination that pedicle screw purchase was poor. One patient was lost to follow-up. Thus, 51 patients were in Group I, 35 in Group II, and 37 in Group III. Follow-up ranged from 9 to 28 months, averaging 16 months.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The impact of fusion as a supplement to short-segment instrumentation for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures is unclear. We conducted a controlled clinical trial to define the effect of fusion on lumbar spine and patient-related functional outcomes.
                From 2000 to 2002, seventy-three consecutive patients with a single-level Denis type-B burst fracture involving the thoracolumbar spine and a load-sharing score of <or=6 were managed with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. The patients were randomly assigned to treatment with posterolateral fusion (fusion group, n = 37) or without posterolateral fusion (nonfusion group, n = 36). The patients were followed for at least five years after surgery and were assessed with regard to clinical and radiographic outcomes. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with use of the Frankel scale, the motor score of the American Spinal Injury Association, a visual analog scale, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Radiographic outcomes were assessed on the basis of the local kyphosis angle and loss of kyphosis correction.
                No significant difference in radiographic or clinical outcomes was noted between the patients managed with the two techniques. Both operative time and blood loss were significantly less in the nonfusion group compared with the fusion group (p < 0.05). Twenty-five of the thirty-seven patients in the fusion group still had some degree of donor-site pain at the time of the latest examination.
                Posterolateral bone-grafting is not necessary when a Denis type-B thoracolumbar burst fracture associated with a load-sharing score of <or=6 is treated with short-segment pedicle screw fixation. The treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture is a controversial issue. Although spinal fusion has been a touchstone of spinal fixation, nonfusion technique have become raising its popularity recently. Some studies suggested that nonfusion had several advantages over fusion. The aim of this prospective study was to compare long segment posterior instrumentation with fusion versus long-segment posterior instrumentation without fusion.
                For this purpose, 42 consecutive patients were assigned to two groups. Group 1 included 21 patients treated by long segment instrumentation with fusion (WF), whereas Group 2 included 21 patients treated by long segment instrumentation without fusion (WOF). Long segment instrumentation was hook fixation (claw hooks attached to second upper vertebra and infralaminar hooks attached to first upper vertebra) above and pedicle fixation (pedicle screws attached to first and second lower vertebrae) below the fractured vertebra.
                Measurements of local kyphosis, sagittal index and anterior vertebral height compression showed that both group had similar outcome at final follow-up. Moreover, there was no difference between the two groups according to low back outcome score. Also, implant failure rate (4.7%) was quite low in both groups. However, WF group had prolonged operative time, increased blood loss and donor site morbidity.
                Radiological and clinical parameters demonstrated that spinal fusion is not necessary in long segment posterior instrumentation for the management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. The treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture is a controversial issue. Short-segment (SS) pedicle fixation has become a popular treatment option. However, there are several studies regarding the high rate of failure. The aim of this prospective study was to compare SS versus long-segment (LS) instrumentation.
                For this purpose, 18 consecutive patients were assigned to two groups. Group 1 included nine patients treated by SS pedicle fixation, whereas group 2 included nine patients treated by LS instrumentation. SS instrumentation was pedicle fixation one level above and below the fractured vertebra. LS instrumentation was hook fixation (claw hooks attached to second upper vertebra and infralaminar hooks attached to first upper vertebra) above and pedicle fixation (pedicle screws attached to first and second lower vertebrae) below the fractured vertebra.
                As a result, measurements of local kyphosis, sagittal index, and anterior vertebral height compression showed that the LS group had a better outcome at final follow-up (P < 0.05). Also, the SS group had a 55% failure rate, whereas the LS group had prolonged operative time and increased blood loss. However, there was no difference between the two groups according to Low Back Outcome Score.
                In conclusion, radiographic parameters demonstrated that LS instrumentation is a more effective management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Nevertheless, clinical outcome was the same between the two groups. However, our conclusions were based on posterior-only surgery. Anterior column support would negate the need for LS fixation. Also, SS would have been more successful if two above and two below pedicle screws were used. A prospective evaluation of the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 71 patients who underwent lumbar fusion, with or without transpedicular instrumentation. The patients completed a questionnaire that determined pain relief, medication use, return to work, and overall satisfaction with surgery.
                To explore the effect, if any, of instrumentation on the outcome of lumbar fusion surgery, according to reports of the patients, and whether there is a correlation between the radiographic determination of a solid fusion and the same patient-reported outcome.
                The literature on this topic reports pseudarthrosis rates from 0% to 57% and good to excellent results from 56% to 95%. These studies provide no clear-cut recommendations concerning the effect of added lumbar instrumentation on patient-reported outcome in a prospective manner using concurrent control subjects.
                The patients were randomized to groups with and without instrumentation after deciding to undergo a lumbar fusion and consenting to enter the study. Radiographs were obtained and questionnaires filled out at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery.
                There was no statistical difference in patient-reported outcome between the two groups. There was a slight nonsignificant trend toward increased radiographic fusion rate in the group with instrumentation that did not correlate with an increased patient-reported improvement rate.
                These results do not provide data that indicate a benefit in outcome from added instrumentation in elective lumbar fusions. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using bone graft or a cage with plate fixation is an accepted technique for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. It is, however, debatable whether a plate is really necessary to increase the progress of fusion. Thus, the aim of this randomized and controlled prospective study was to evaluate whether ACDF with a cage and anterior plate fixation results in a greater progress of fusion compared with ACDF using a stand-alone cage.
                37 candidates for ACDF were treated either with a stand-alone cage (study group) or with a cage+plate fixation (control group). 19 patients were randomized to be stabilized with a stand-alone cage and 18 patients were treated with a cage and additional anterior plate fixation. The progress of cervical fusion over time was compared by radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Follow-up examinations pre- and postoperatively were done using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain. Radiographic assessment of fusion using an RSA-control was done after one, six and twelve weeks, as well as after six months, and one and two years postoperatively. Mann-Whitney test for unpaired values was used to determine the statistical differences in residual intervertebral motion.
                Three-dimensional analysis of segmental motion (left-right, cranio-caudal, and posterior-anterior) did not reveal any statistical differences between both groups at any examination time postoperatively ( P>0.05). The VAS score did not differ between the groups ( P>0.05).
                Anterior plate fixation did not demonstrate an improvement in the progress of fusion in one-level ACDF. Conflicting views exist according to the individual philosophy about various plate designs that can be used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to achieve clinical and radiological improvement within shortest time period. No prospective randomized study has ever been conducted to clarify the relationship between clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and the choice of plate (static vs. dynamic design).
                To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients treated with one-level or multiple levels ACDF using cervical plates of dynamic (slotted-holes) versus static (fixed-holes) design.
                Single masked, prospective, randomized study.
                Over a 4-year period, 66 patients (M:F=37:29) had ACDF using either dynamic (n=33) or static (n=33) plates for intractable radiculopathy as the result of degenerative cervical spine disease. Overall, 28 patients had single-level fusion and 38 had two or three levels fused.
                Visual Analogue Pain scores (VASs), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and radiological criteria of established fusion.
                The qualifying subjects were randomized to receive ACDF using either fixed-holes (static) or the slotted-holes (dynamic) anterior cervical plates. Clinical and radiographic data were collected and analyzed. Paired-sample t test was used to correlate clinical and radiological outcomes and General Linear Model Analysis of Variance (GLM ANOVA) with repeated measures was used to detect outcome differences between the two groups for single and multiple fusions.
                At a mean follow-up of 16 months (range, 12-24), 49 patients (73.7%) had clinical success and 56 (85%) showed radiological fusion. Although clinical success was a predictor of fusion (p=.043), the reverse was not true (p=.61). In single-level fusion, no statistical difference of outcome was observed between the two groups but multilevel fusions with dynamic plate showed significantly lower VAS and NDI than those with static plates (p=.050).
                Although clinical improvement is a good predictor of successful ACDF, radiological evidence of fusion alone is not reliable as a parameter of success. The design of plate does not affect the outcomes in single-level fusions but statistics indicate that multiple-level fusions may have better clinical outcome when a dynamic plate design is used.
This review included only eight small trials and five different comparisons of methods of pedicle fixation in various participants while looking at a variety of outcomes at different time points. Overall, evidence is insufficient to inform the selection of different methods of pedicle screw fixation or the combined use of fusion. However, in the absence of robust evidence to support fusion, it is important to factor the risk of long-term donor site pain related to bone harvesting into the decision of whether to use this intervention. Further research involving high-quality randomised trials is needed.