Comparative study of transpediculer screw fixation and intertransverse fusion with and without interbody cage insertion in management of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis
{"title":"Comparative study of transpediculer screw fixation and intertransverse fusion with and without interbody cage insertion in management of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis","authors":"A. Yosri, Gasser Al-Shyal, A. Shehab","doi":"10.4103/sjamf.sjamf_157_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Lumbosacral spondylolisthesis is a common pathology characterized by single or multilevel slippage of lumbar vertebra over the other and may be associated with spinal canal stenosis and neural foramina compromise and may present with lower back pain, radicular pain, or neurogenic claudication pain. The current study aimed to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of two surgical fusion techniques in the management of this pathology Patients and methods A total of 40 patients with lumbosacral spondylolisthesis were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the surgical approach and fixation technique used in the management. Group A was operated by posterior lumbar decompression, transpedicular screw fixation, and posterolateral intertransverse bony fusion. Group B was operated by posterior decompression, transpedicular screw, and posterolateral intertransverse bony fusion associated with interbody fusion by insertion of interbody cages. Results Statistical significance was reached in the duration of surgery, blood loss, and postoperative fusion rates, but there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding intraoperative or postoperative complication rates, clinical outcome, and patient satisfaction. Conclusion The application of the lumbar interbody cage with posterolateral intertransverse fusion proved to have better fusion rates, but still intertransverse bony fusion alone gives the same results regarding patient satisfaction and postoperative clinical improvement with shorter operative time.","PeriodicalId":22975,"journal":{"name":"The Scientific Journal of Al-Azhar Medical Faculty, Girls","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Scientific Journal of Al-Azhar Medical Faculty, Girls","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sjamf.sjamf_157_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Lumbosacral spondylolisthesis is a common pathology characterized by single or multilevel slippage of lumbar vertebra over the other and may be associated with spinal canal stenosis and neural foramina compromise and may present with lower back pain, radicular pain, or neurogenic claudication pain. The current study aimed to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of two surgical fusion techniques in the management of this pathology Patients and methods A total of 40 patients with lumbosacral spondylolisthesis were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the surgical approach and fixation technique used in the management. Group A was operated by posterior lumbar decompression, transpedicular screw fixation, and posterolateral intertransverse bony fusion. Group B was operated by posterior decompression, transpedicular screw, and posterolateral intertransverse bony fusion associated with interbody fusion by insertion of interbody cages. Results Statistical significance was reached in the duration of surgery, blood loss, and postoperative fusion rates, but there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding intraoperative or postoperative complication rates, clinical outcome, and patient satisfaction. Conclusion The application of the lumbar interbody cage with posterolateral intertransverse fusion proved to have better fusion rates, but still intertransverse bony fusion alone gives the same results regarding patient satisfaction and postoperative clinical improvement with shorter operative time.