A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine

D. Grob, V. Bartanusz, D. Jeszenszky, F. S. Kleinstück, F. Lattig, D. O'Riordan, A. F. Mannion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1347-1353
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B
Volume91
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2009

Fingerprint

Spine
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Phthiraptera
Observational Studies
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pedicle Screws
Therapeutics
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. / Grob, D.; Bartanusz, V.; Jeszenszky, D.; Kleinstück, F. S.; Lattig, F.; O'Riordan, D.; Mannion, A. F.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B, Vol. 91, No. 10, 10.2009, p. 1347-1353.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{521d46c43f8744f9a54750f62557b6cd,
title = "A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine",
abstract = "In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2{\%} to 4{\%}). In all, 91{\%} of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (SD 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (SD 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); 'good' global outcomes, 78{\%} (translaminar screws) vs 78{\%} (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82{\%} (translaminar screws) vs 86{\%} (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patientorientated results at two years.",
author = "D. Grob and V. Bartanusz and D. Jeszenszky and Kleinst{\"u}ck, {F. S.} and F. Lattig and D. O'Riordan and Mannion, {A. F.}",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1302/0301-620X.91B10.22195",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "1347--1353",
journal = "Bone and Joint Journal",
issn = "2049-4394",
publisher = "British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine

AU - Grob, D.

AU - Bartanusz, V.

AU - Jeszenszky, D.

AU - Kleinstück, F. S.

AU - Lattig, F.

AU - O'Riordan, D.

AU - Mannion, A. F.

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (SD 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (SD 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); 'good' global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patientorientated results at two years.

AB - In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (SD 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (SD 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); 'good' global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patientorientated results at two years.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349653533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349653533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1302/0301-620X.91B10.22195

DO - 10.1302/0301-620X.91B10.22195

M3 - Article

C2 - 19794171

AN - SCOPUS:70349653533

VL - 91

SP - 1347

EP - 1353

JO - Bone and Joint Journal

JF - Bone and Joint Journal

SN - 2049-4394

IS - 10

ER -