A Comparative Study of Anterior Interbody Fusion with and without Posterior Instrumentation in Infection of the Lumbar Spine.
- Author:
Won Sik CHOY
1
;
Whoan Jeang KIM
;
Kwang Won LEE
;
Jae Hoon AHN
;
Yong Bum PARK
;
Ha Yong KIM
;
Kyou Hyeun KIM
;
Teok Scop KEUM
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eul-Ji Medical College, Tae-Jon, Korea. hjkim@emc.eulji.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Infection of lumbar spine;
Posterior instrumentation;
Anterior interbody fusion
- MeSH:
Animals;
Back Pain;
Classification;
Curettage;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Incidence;
Kyphosis;
Lordosis;
Spine*
- From:Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery
1999;6(3):458-463
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STUDY DESIGN: Twenty patients with spinal infection(tuberculous+pyogenic) in the lumbar spine were evaluated according to the surgical treatment methods using posterior instrumentation(pedicle screw) and conventional anterior curettage and interbody fusion method without posterior instrumentation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the method consisting of posterior instrumentation using pedicle screw and anterior lumbar interbody fusion. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW: It has been reported that patients ended up with kyphosis had a higher incidence of back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with spine infection in the lumbar spine divided into two groups depending on their use of posterior instrumentation in surgical treatment methods. One group consisted of 10 cases which were treated by conventional anterior curettage and anterior lumbar interbody fusion only(Group A) and the other groups consisted of 10 cases were treated by conventional anterior curettage and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation using pedicle screw(Group B) by a single surgeon. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using Macnab's classification and the radiographys were analyzed with respect to fusion status and sagittal angle. RESULTS: A solid bony fusion was obtained in Group B. But in Group A, 2 cases of bony resorption were occurred. The preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final follow-up sagittal angle in both groups were -7.4degree/ - 0 . 8degree, -19.0degree/ - 1 2 . 4degreeand -5.9degree/ - 8 . 6degree, respectively. There is a significant statistical difference in loss of sagittal angle correction between two groups(P<0.05). There is no complication related to the posterior instrumentation, but only 1 case of superficial infection was occurred. The clinical outcome which was evaluated by Macnab's method, there was no significant statistical difference between two groups(P>0.05), but exellent result was more common in Group B. CONCLUSION: This method which consist of conventional curettage and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation appears to be effective in stabilizing the vertebrae, and restoration and maintenance of physiologic lumbar lordosis. we would suggested this method for the surgical treatment in infection of lumbar spine.
