3.9 Article

Porosity of β-Tricalcium Phosphate Affects the Results of Lumbar Posterolateral Fusion

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 E40-E45

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31823db5e6

关键词

lumbar spine; spinal fusion; spinal canal stenosis; bone graft; artificial bone

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23390361] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: Clinical case-control and cross-sectional study. Objectives: To determine the influence of different porosities of beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) as a bone substitute combined with local autograft bone obtained from decompression for lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF). Summary of Background Data: Several reports have documented a high bone fusion rate using beta-TCP as a bone substitute. beta-TCP is increasingly used to supplement autograft in lumbar PLF, but the influence of different porosities of beta-TCP for the lumbar PLF has not been reported. Methods: Sixty patients who were diagnosed with lumbar degenerative diseases and treated with 2-level noninstrumented lumbar PLF were divided into 2 groups. Thirty patients were treated with 75% porous beta-TCP (beta-TCP-75 group), and the others were treated with 60% porous beta-TCP (beta-TCP-60 group). The clinical and radiographic results of each patient were assessed at 2 years postoperatively. Results: Both the groups showed a good improvement rate of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA score) at 2 years postoperatively, but there were no significant differences between them. The beta-TCP-75 group represented a bone fusion rate of 70.0% (64.7% in men, 76.9% in women) and the beta-TCP-60 group was 93.3% (87.5% in men, 100.0% in women). The latter exhibited a significantly better bone fusion rate than the beta-TCP-75 group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: In lumbar PLF, 60% porous beta-TCP granules achieved a higher bone fusion rate than 75% porous beta-TCP granules.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据