4.5 Article

Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine with a local bone graft versus an iliac crest bone graft: a prospective, randomized study with a 2-year follow-up

Journal

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 635-639

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1656-7

Keywords

Posterolateral fusion; Local; Iliac crest; Bone; Graft

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The iliac crest bone grafting (ICBG) technique for lumbar posterolateral fusion surgery is widely used; however, donor site problems such as pain and sensory disturbance have been reported. Local bone is available for fusion surgery, but its reliability as a graft has not been fully reported. In the current study, we examined single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion with a local bone graft versus an ICBG in a prospective randomized study. Eighty-two patients diagnosed with L4 degenerated spondylolisthesis were divided into two groups at random. Forty-two patients underwent instrumented posterolateral fusion with a local bone graft (L4-L5 level), and 40 patients underwent instrumented posterolateral fusion with an ICBG (L4-L5 level). Rate and duration of bone union, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Japanese orthopedic association score (JOAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications were evaluated before and 2 years after therapy. VAS score, JOAS, and ODI were not significantly different between the two groups before and after surgery (P > 0.05). Rate and average duration of bone union were 90% and 8.5 months in the local bone graft group, and 85% and 7.7 months in the ICBG group, but without significant difference (P > 0.05). Prolonged surgical time and complications such as donor site pain (8 patients) and sensory disturbance (6 patients) were observed in the ICBG group. If single-level posterolateral fusion was performed, local bone graft technique has the same bone union rate compared with ICBG, requires less surgical time, and has fewer complications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available