Evidence-based spine-care journal最新文献

{"title":"Electrical stimulation to enhance spinal fusion: a systematic review.","authors":"Paul Park, Darryl Lau, Erika D Brodt, Joseph R Dettori","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1386752","DOIUrl":"10.1055/s-0034-1386752","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions Compared with no stimulation, does electrical stimulation promote bone fusion after lumbar spinal fusion procedures? Does the effect differ based on the type of electrical stimulation used? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up to October 15, 2013, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of electrical stimulation to no electrical stimulation on fusion rates after lumbar spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Results Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The following types of electrical stimulation were investigated: direct current (three studies), pulsed electromagnetic field (three studies), and capacitive coupling (one study). The control groups consisted of no stimulation (two studies) or placebo (four studies). Marked heterogeneity in study populations, characteristics, and design prevented a meta-analysis. Regardless of the type of electrical stimulation used, cumulative incidences of fusion varied widely across the RCTs, ranging from 35.4 to 90.6% in the intervention groups and from 33.3 to 81.9% in the control groups across 9 to 24 months of follow-up. Similarly, when stratified by the type of electrical stimulation used, fusion outcomes from individual studies varied, leading to inconsistent and conflicting results. Conclusion Given the inconsistency in study results, possibly due to heterogeneity in study populations/characteristics and quality, we are unable to conclude that electrical stimulation results in better fusion outcomes compared with no stimulation. The overall strength of evidence for the conclusions is low. </p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"87-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174185/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32716462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commentary on: \"Vertebral Artery Anomalies at the Craniovertebral Junction: A Case Report and Review of the Literature\".","authors":"Robert W Molinari","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1386757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1386757","url":null,"abstract":"The authors report a case of an unstable C1 fracture with magnetic resonance imaging demonstrating rupture of the transverse ligament. Posterior vertebral artery anomaly in the form of a right persistent first intersegmental artery was identified preoperatively in the region of the right posterior C1–C2 lateral mass interval. The surgical plan was altered to avoid the anomalous vertebral artery and the patient was successfully managed with an uncomplicated occiput to C3 instrumentation and fusion procedure. The literature review includes a discussion of the work by Uchino et al who have reported a persistent first intersegmental artery in up to 3.2% of normal subjects and an overall prevalence of craniovertebral junction vertebral artery anomalies of 5%.1 \u0000 \u0000This article is an important addition to the existing literature as it highlights the relatively high prevalence of vertebral artery anomalies at the craniovertebral junction. The case described involves an aberrant vertebral artery with an anomalous course located posteriorly between the C1 and C2 lateral masses. This particular vertebral artery anomaly poses great risk to the conventional placement of C1 lateral mass screws through previously described techniques involving the exposure of the C1 lateral mass or placement of the screw through the C1 posterior ring. The anomaly was identified preoperatively by computed tomography angiography in this case, and intraoperative vertebral artery injury was avoided. The utility of the use of routine of preoperative imaging studies to demonstrate the course of the bilateral vertebral arteries before any planned exposure of the craniocervical junction is clearly implied in this case report. \u0000 \u0000The significance of this case report and review of the literature lies in the identification of the increased risk of complication involving vertebral artery injury through a routine posterior cervical spine surgical exposure. Much of the existing literature involving vertebral artery injury in cervical spinal surgery has focused on injuries incurred with anterior cervical spinal surgical procedures. Tortuous anterior course of the vertebral artery in the subaxial cervical spine has been well described by Curylo et al in approximately 5.5% of subjects.2 Multiple reports of injury to the vertebral artery during anterior cervical decompression surgery exist in the literature.3 Five studies reported rates of 0.10 to 1.96%, depending on the type of anterior cervical spine procedure.3 There remains, however, a paucity of literature with respect to vertebral artery injury incurred with a posterior cervical surgical exposure. Molinari et al recently reported vertebral artery injury in two cases involving a persistent first intersegmental artery in the region of C1–C2. Both injuries were incurred with routine posterior exposure of the C1–C2 anatomy. A review of the existing literature demonstrates few publications on this topic.3 \u0000 \u0000The authors should be applauded for ","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0034-1386757","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32716962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Outpatient surgery in the cervical spine: is it safe?","authors":"Michael J Lee, Iain Kalfas, Haley Holmer, Andrea Skelly","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1389088","DOIUrl":"10.1055/s-0034-1389088","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale As the length of stay after cervical spine surgery has decreased substantially, the feasibility and safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery come into question. Although minimal length of stay is a targeted metric for quality and costs for medical centers, the safety of outpatient cervical spine surgery has not been clearly defined. Objective The objective of this article is to evaluate the safety of inpatient versus outpatient surgery in the cervical spine for adult patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic degenerative disc disease. Methods A systematic review of the literature was undertaken for articles published through February 19, 2014. Electronic databases and the bibliographies of key articles were searched to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of inpatient versus outpatient surgery in the cervical spine. Spinal cord stimulation, spinal injections, and diagnostic procedures were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. One study reported low risk of hematoma (0% of outpatients and 1.6% of inpatients). Two studies reported on mortality and both reported no deaths in either group following surgery. Dysphagia risks ranged from 0 to 10% of outpatients and 1.6 to 5% of inpatients, and infection risks ranged from 0 to 1% of outpatients and 2 to 2.8% of inpatients. One study reported that no (0) outpatients were readmitted to the hospital due to a complication, compared with four inpatients (7%). The overall strength of evidence was insufficient for all safety outcomes examined. Conclusion Though the studies in our systematic review did not suggest an increased risk of complication with outpatient cervical spine surgery, the strength of evidence to make a recommendation was insufficient. Further study is needed to more clearly define the role of outpatient cervical spine surgery. </p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"101-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174186/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32716464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commentary on: \"Hydrocephalus Following Bilateral Dumbbell-Shaped C2 Spinal Neurofibromas Resection and Postoperative Cervical Pseudomeningocele in a Patient with Neurofibromatosis Type 1: A Case Report\".","authors":"Andrew T Dailey","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1387802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1387802","url":null,"abstract":"In this report, Nicola and colleagues report the occurrence of hydrocephalus 1 month after resection of dumbbell C2 neurofibromas. Prior to surgical intervention, the patient had a mild progressive quadriparesis, which improved after tumor resection. At 1 month postoperatively, the patient had a pseudomeningocele and enlarging ventricles consistent with the symptomatic hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus can occur in patients with neurofibromatosistype1 but is usuallyassociatedwith opticpathwaygliomas, thalamic and hypothalamic tumors, intrinsic brainstem gliomas, or aqueductal stenosis. 1 Furthermore, hydrocephalus is a well-described entity with spinal cord tumors, and it is estimated that 1% of patients with spinal cord tumors present have hydrocephalus at presentation. 2 Most commonly, hydrocephalus is associated with intrinsic spinal cord tumors (75%), though it can happen with extramedullary tumors. Several mechanisms have been implicated, including increased protein from tumor or hemorrhage, obstruction of cerebrospinal fluid(CSF) pathways, or even neoplastic seeding. However,if it is identified before surgery, it is important to resect the spinal cord tumor before inserting a shunt to avoid shunt-related neurological deterioration. The authors of this report suggest that there was no hydrocephalus on presentation, though it is uncertain if this was evaluated radiologically. The most likely etiology for the hydrocephalus is a postoperative pseudomeningocele or CSF fistula with compression of the foramina of Magendie and Luschka, preventing normal CSF flow. In large series of posterior fossa decompressions for etiologies such as Chiari malformations or tumors, CSF leaks and pseudomeningoceles can form at rates of 6 to 10% with delayed hydrocephalus presenting in 3 to 5% ofpatients. 3,4 Inchildrenwith posterior fossatumors, the rate of postoperative hydrocephalus is very high, with 30% needing additional intervention after the original operation. 5 The presence of a postoperative pseudomeningocele in these patients is a harbinger of hydrocephalus as it was in the current case. Hydrocephalus can also occur after closed head injury with estimatesof posttraumatic hydrocephalus as high as 30% in patients with severe closed head injury. If the patient has concomitant injury to the upper cervical spine that requires intervention, a pseudomeningocele may form at the site of cervical injury with cranial imaging revealing ventricular enlargement. 6,7 The mechanism of posttraumatic hydrocephalus formation is not dissimilar to the presumed mechanism in the current case with obstruction of CSF outflow from the cranium or decreased resorption of CSF duetobloodandproteinblocking thearachnoidgranulations. In any event, the authors astutely recognized that this patient’s pseudomeningocele was a sign of hydrocephalus and treated the hydrocephalus before further morbidity or even death ensued.","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"139-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0034-1387802","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32716964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Occam's Paradox? A Variation of Tapia Syndrome and an Unreported Complication of Guidewire-Assisted Pedicle Screw Insertion","authors":"O. Emohare, Erik Peterson, Nathaniel Slinkard, S. Janus, R. Morgan","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1371444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1371444","url":null,"abstract":"1Center for Spine and Spinal Cord Injury, Regions Hospital, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, United States 4Department of Otolaryngology, Regions Hospital, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States 5Department of Otolaryngology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"122 1","pages":"70 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73160576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Credibility matters: mind the gap.","authors":"Andrea C Skelly","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1371445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1371445","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the Science in Spine articles in EBSJ is to assist surgeons in understanding research, facilitate critical thinking about research beyond “statistical significance,” and to help enhance the quality of research that they report. Decisions by clinicians, patients, and policy makers rest on the quality and integrity of reported research. To avoid biased study reporting: \u0000 \u0000 \u0000It is important to have a framework such as PICOTS/PPOTS for specific primary study features a priori. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000It is important to report on all study results/outcomes regardless of statistical significance. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000It is important to consider the potential for various types of reporting and publication bias when critically appraising studies and systematic reviews. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000It is in the best interest of all to “mind the gap” and actively take steps to improve the value and reporting of research (regardless of study design or funding source) by following basic research steps to ensure quality.","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"2-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0034-1371445","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32248189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The concomitance of cervical spondylosis and adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity.","authors":"Michael H Weber,&nbsp;C H Hong,&nbsp;William W Schairer,&nbsp;Steven Takemoto,&nbsp;Serena S Hu","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1368668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1368668","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Clinical Question What is the prevalence of cervical spondylosis (CS) and thoracolumbar (TL) spinal deformity in an administrative database during a 4-year study period? Is the prevalence of CS or TL deformity higher in patients who have the other spine diagnosis compared with the overall study population? Are patients with both diagnoses more likely to have undergone spine surgery? Patients and Methods An administrative claims database containing 53 million patients with either Medicare (2005-2008) or private payer (2007-2010) insurance was used to identify patients with diagnoses of CS and/or TL deformity. Disease prevalence between groups was compared using a χ (2) test and reported using prevalence ratios (PR). Results The prevalence of CS was higher in patients with TL deformity than without TL deformity, for both Medicare (PR = 2.81) and private payer (PR = 1.79). Similarly, the prevalence of TL deformity was higher in patients with CS than without CS for both Medicare (PR = 3.19) and private payer (PR = 2.05). Patients with both diagnoses were more likely to have undergone both cervical (Medicare, PR = 1.44; private payer, PR = 2.03) and TL (Medicare, PR = 1.68; private payer, PR = 1.74) spine fusion. All comparisons were significant with p < 0.0001. Conclusions Patients with either CS or TL deformity had a higher prevalence of the other spinal diagnosis compared with the overall disease prevalence in the study population. Patients with both diagnoses had a higher prevalence of having spine surgery compared with patients with only one diagnosis. More studies to identify a causal mechanism for this relationship are warranted. </p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"6-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0034-1368668","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32248190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Vertebral artery anomaly and injury in spinal surgery.","authors":"Robert Molinari, Matthew Bessette, Annie L Raich, Joseph R Dettori, Christine Molinari","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1366980","DOIUrl":"10.1055/s-0034-1366980","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Study rationale: </strong>The purpose of this review is to further define the published literature with respect to vertebral artery (VA) anomaly and injury in patients with degenerative cervical spinal conditions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In adult patients with cervical spine or degenerative cervical spine disorders receiving cervical spine surgery, what is the incidence of VA injury, and among resulting VA injuries, which treatments result in a successful outcome and what percent are successfully repaired?</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review of pertinent articles published up to April 2013. Studies involving traumatic onset, fracture, infection, deformity or congenital abnormality, instability, inflammatory spinal diseases, or neoplasms were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria; disagreements were resolved by consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a total of 72 possible citations, the following met our inclusion criteria and formed the basis for this report. Incidence of VA injuries ranged from 0.20 to 1.96%. None of the studies reported using preoperative imaging to identify anomalous or tortuous VA. Primary repair and ligation were the most effective in treating VA injuries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The incidence of VA injuries in degenerative cervical spinal surgery might be as high as 1.96% and is likely underreported. Direct surgical repair is the most effective treatment option. The most important preventative technique for VA injuries is preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography angiographic imaging to detect VA anomalies. The overall strength of evidence for the conclusions is low.</p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"16-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969432/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32248192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Treating spinal storage diseases with macro data?","authors":"Jens Chapman","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1372332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1372332","url":null,"abstract":"The avid reader of EBSJ may be surprised that we have three case reports in this issue. Of course, the editors of this fine journal are keenly aware that in the evidence pyramid, case reports rank dead last due to their limited scientific value and high variability. However, in reviewing these case reports, we found a common denominator that is hopefully of some value to our readership: that of the underlying pathomechanism being storage diseases. These conditions have truly remained somewhat of a stepchild in spine surgery; outside of the traditional realms of deformity, trauma, neoplasia, and infection, they and metabolic bone diseases have remained more on the fringes of our clinical awareness. To the present date, it remains unclear how often patients with storage diseases and spinal problems remain undiagnosed by their spine surgeons, and similarly, how infrequently the primary care providers treating the disease processes are unaware of the potential spinal implications of these disorders. In all the cases presented in this EBSJ issue, the run-up time until appropriate diagnosis was long, and also in all the cases, the typically late spine manifestations prevented a “cure” and required reconstructive intervention. With the advent of large-scale data banks—such as provided through the AOSpine International Knowledge Forum— hopefully, interested groups will form a “Storage Disease” section to start collecting these diseases and make detection, treatment, and eventually prevention a distinct possibility in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, we hope that these case reports—all thoughtfully written and full of interesting observations—will trigger a more coordinated data collection effort for the forgotten stepchild of spine: storage diseases. The power of global data storage with biological specimens could conceivably trigger unprecedented disease insights. We hope the AOSpine community will not just agree but also act.","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0034-1372332","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32248188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison between C1-2 Fixation with and without Supplemental Posterior Wiring.","authors":"Mai Tran, Rishi Wadhwa, John Ziewacz, Praveen Mummaneni, Dean Chou","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1371972","DOIUrl":"10.1055/s-0034-1371972","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Design Retrospective analysis. Clinical Question Is there a difference between the screw-rod construct (SRC) procedure without wiring and the SRC procedure with wiring with respect to fusion, implant failure, reoperation, donor-site morbidity, and complication rates? Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients who underwent C1-2 fixation between 2004 and 2012 (SRC with wiring and structural bone graft, 13 patients; SRC with autograft but without wiring, 13 patients). Fusion was assessed using dynamic X-rays in all patients and computed tomographic scans in selected cases. Pseudoarthrosis was confirmed during reoperation. Results The mean follow-up time was 2 years and 5 months for the SRC without wiring group and 2 years and 1 month for the SRC with wiring group. Patients with less than 1-year follow-up time were excluded. The fusion rate, implant failure rate, and reoperation rates for the SRC without wiring group were 92, 8, and 8%, respectively. The fusion, implant failure, and reoperation rates for the SRC with wiring group were 100, 0, and 0%, respectively. There were no donor-site morbidities or complications in either group (both 0%). There were no differences in parameters we examined between the two groups (p > 0.05 for each rate, Fisher exact test). Conclusions The results suggest that supplementing the SRC procedure with wiring may increase fusion rate, but this difference is not statistically significant. Although the sample size was small, there was not a significant discrepancy in outcomes between the two groups at an average follow-up of 2 years. [Table: see text]. </p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"12-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969422/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"32248191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}