Advances in Therapy

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 12–20

Outcomes after posterolateral lumbar fusion with instrumentation in patients treated with adjunctive pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation

  • Bikash Bose
Article

Abstract

Fusion success and clinical outcome were determined in 48 high-risk patients who underwent posterolateral lumbar fusions with internal fixation and were treated with adjunctive pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation postoperatively. An independent radiographic assessment demonstrated a success rate of 97.9%. Following treatment, 59% of the working patients returned to their employment. Overall clinical assessment was excellent in 4.2% of patients, good in 79.2%, and fair in 1 6.7%; no patient had a poor clinical assessment.

Keywords

posterolateral spine fusion pulsed electromagnetic fields instrumentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    An HS, Lynch K, Toth J. Prospective comparison of autograft vs. allograft for adult posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. Differences among freeze-dried, frozen and mixed grafts.J Spinal Disord. 1995;8:131–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown CW, Orme TJ, Richardson HD. The rate of pseudoarthrosis (surgical nonunion) in patients who are smokers and patients who are nonsmokers: a comparison study.Spine. 1986;11:942–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herkowitz HN, Sidhu KS. Lumbar spine fusion in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1995;3:123–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim SS, Michelson CB. Revision surgery for failed back surgery syndrome.Spine. 1992;17:957–960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silcox DH, Daftari T, Boden SD, Schimandle JH, Hutton WC, Whitesides TE. The effect of nicotine on spinal fusion.Spine. 1995;20:1549–1553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkinson HA. Low back pain. In:The Failed Back Syndrome: Etiology and Therapy. Philadelphia: Springer; 1983:20–33.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yuan HA. Electrical stimulation and spinal fusion.Perspect Neurol Surg. 1996;7:77–90.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mooney V. A randomized double-blind prospective study of the efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic fields for interbody lumbar fusions.Spine. 1990;15:708–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bassett CAL. Fundamental and practical aspects of therapeutic uses of pulsed electromagnetic fields.Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 1989;17:451–529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zoltan JD. Electrical stimulation of bone: an overview.Semin Orthop. 1986;1:242–252.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grubb SA, Lipscomb HJ. Results of lumbosacral fusion for degenerative disc disease with and without instrumentation. Twoto five-year follow-up.Spine. 1992;17:349–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Snider RK, Krumwiede NK, Sniker LJ, Jurist JM, Lew RA, Katz JN. Factors affecting lumbar spinal fusion.J Spinal Disord. 1999;12:107–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zdeblick TA. A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results.Spine. 1993;18:983–991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simmons JS. Treatment of failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) of the spine with pulsing electromagnetic fields.Clin Orthop. 1985;193:127–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Savini R, Di Silvestre M, Garguilo G, Bettini N. The use of pulsing electromagnetic fields in postero-lateral lumbosacral spinal fusion.J Biolect. 1990;9:9–17.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahanovitz N. Spine update. The use of adjunctive electrical stimulation to enhance the healing of spine fusions.Spine. 1996;21:2523–2525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahanovitz N, Arnoczky SP, Hulse D, Shires PK. The effect of postoperative electromagnetic pulsing on canine posterior spinal fusions.Spine. 1984;9:273–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kahanovitz N, Arnoczky SP, Nemzek J, Shores A. The effect of electromagnetic pulsing on posterior lumbar spinal fusion in dogs.Spine. 1994;19:705–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glazer PA, Heilmann MR, Lotz JC, Bradford DS. Use of electromagnetic fields in a spinal fusion. A rabbit model.Spine. 1997;22:2351–2356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guizzardi S, Di Silvestre M, Govoni P, Scandroglio R. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation in posterior spinal fusions. A histological study in rats.J Spinal Disord. 1994;7:36–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gurr KR, Haddad BR, Mowbray RD. In vivo analysis of autograft versus allograft in posterior transverse fusions.Orthop Trans. 1992;16:138.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jorgenson SS, Lowe TG, France J, Sabin J. A prospective analysis of autograft versus allograft in posterolateral lumbar fusion in the same patient. A minimum of 1-year follow-up in 144 patients.Spine. 1994;19:2048–2053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malinin TI, Brown MD. Bone allografts in spinal surgery.Clin Orthop. 1981;154:266–274.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fernyhough JC, Larocca SH. Lumbar spine fusions utilizing crushed freeze-dried cortico-cancellous allograft with cancellous autograft. Presented at: North American Spine Society; July 9, 1992; Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boden SD, Schimandle JH. Biologic enhancement of spinal fusion.Spine. 1995;20:113S-123S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boden SD, Schimandle JH. Biology of lumbar spine fusion and bone graft materials. In: Wiesel SW, Weinstein JN, Herkowitz H, Dvorak J, Bell G, eds.The Lumbar Spine, II. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996:1284–1306.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knapp DR, Jones ET. Use of cortical cancellous allograft for posterior spinal fusion.Clin Orthop. 1988;229:99–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Transfeldt E, Lonstein J, Winter R et al. Wound infection in reconstructive spine surgery.Orthop Trans. 1985;9:128–129.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Friedlander GE, Huo M. Bone grafts and bone substitutes. In: Frymoyer JW, ed.The Adult Spine, Principles and Practice. New York: Raven Press; 1991:565–574.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hanley EN Jr, Phillips E, Harvell MD Jr. Allograft. In: Rothman RH, Simeone KA, eds.The Spine, II. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1992:1766–1773.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bernhardt M, Swartz DE, Clothiaux PL, Crowell RR, White AA. Posterolateral lumbar and lumbosacral fusion with and without pedicle screw internal fixation.Clin Orthop. 1992;284:109–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Sauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation.Spine. 1999;24: 553–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greenough CG, Peterson MD, Hadlow S, Fraser RD. Instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Results and comparison with anterior interbody fusion.Spine. 1998;15:479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parker LM, Murrell SE, Boden SD, Horton WC. The outcome of posterolateral fusion in highly selected patients with discogenic low back pain.Spine. 1996;21:1909–1917.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwab FJ, Nazarian DG, Mahmud F, Michelson CB. Effects of spinal instrumentation on fusion of the lumbosacral spine.Spine. 1995;20:2023–2038.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions.JAMA. 1992; 268:907–911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Health Communications Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bikash Bose
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Center of DelawareNewark, Delaware
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryThomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphia
  3. 3.Omega Professional CenterNewark

Personalised recommendations