Skip to main content

A comparative study between local bone graft with a cage and with no cage in single posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery volume 134, pages 1051–1057 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

A retrospective study was performed to compare the clinical and radiological results between local bone graft with a cage and without using a cage in patients treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

Methods

A total of 115 consecutive patients who underwent PLIF in three institutions were evaluated from December 2005 to December 2010. 53 patients received PLIF with local bone graft combined with using one PEEK cage, and 62 patients received the PLIF with local bone graft without using a cage. The clinical data and perioperative complications of the patients in the two groups were recorded. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were taken to calculate the disc height and the interbody bony fusion rate. Functional outcome was assessed using the Kirkaldy-Willis criteria at the follow-up time. The results between the cage group and no cage group were compared.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 19 months in no cage group and 18.5 months in cage group (P = 0.716). 20.9 % of patients (13 cases) in no cage group and 20.7 % of patients (11 cases) in cage group developed surgical complications perioperatively (P = 0.978). 51.6 % patients in no cage group got excellent functional outcome at the final follow-up while 54.7 % patients in cage group (P = 0.944). The mean interbody bony fusion time was 7.5 ± 4.5 months in no cage group and 8 ± 3.5 months in cage group (P = 0.841). According to the radiographs measurement, no significant difference was found for the disc height at each level between the two groups at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

Local bone graft without a cage is as beneficial as that with a cage for PLIF. Comparing with local bone graft using a single cage, we believe that the purely local bone graft is a more ideal way in single PLIF.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Collis JS (1985) Total disc replacement: a modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion: report of 750 cases. Clin Orthop 193:64–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin PM (1985) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop 193:90–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE (2004) Lumbar interbody fusion: state-of-the-arttechnical advances: invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004. J Neurosurg Spine 1:24–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:679–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: part 10: fusion following decompression in patients with stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:686–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Muramatsu K, Hachiya Y, Izawa H et al (2012) Remodeling of heat-treated cortical bone allografts for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: serial 10-year follow-up. Cell Tissue Bank 13:529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Linovitz RJ, Peppers TA (2002) Use of an advanced formulation of beta-tricalcium phosphate as a bone extender in interbody lumbar fusion. Orthopedics 25(5 Suppl):s585–s589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Kanayama M et al (2002) Clinical results of single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F carbon cage filled with a mixture of local morselized bone and bioactive ceramic granules. Spine 27:258–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim H, Lee CK, Yeom JS et al (2012) The efficacy of porous hydroxyapatite bone chip as an extender of local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21(7):1324–1330

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Diedrich O, Kraft CN, Perlick L et al (2001) The posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages (PLIF) and transpedicular stabilization. Zentralbl Neurochir 62:106–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Patil SS, Rawall S, Nagad P et al (2011) Outcome of single level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion using corticocancellous laminectomy bone chips. Indian J Orthop 45(6):500–503

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y et al (2010) Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 35(21):E1101–E1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T et al (2013) Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 22:1158–1163

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hu MW, Liu ZL, Zhou Y et al (2012) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using spinous process and laminae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:373–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Paine KW, Cauchoix J et al (1974) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 99:30–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Santos ER, Goss DG, Morcom RK et al (2003) Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages. Spine 28:997–1001

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cloward RB (1963) Lesions of the intervertebral disks and their treatment by interbody fusion methods: the painful disk. Clin Orthop 27:51–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cloward RB (1981) Spondylolisthesis: treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 154:74–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cloward RB (1985) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop 193:16–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Okuyama K, Kido T, Unoki E et al (2007) PLIF with a titanium cage and excised facet joint bone for degenerative spondylolisthesis––in augmentation with a pedicle screw. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:53–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen L, Tang T, Yang H (2003) Complications associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using Bagby and Kuslich method for treatment of spondylolisthesis. Chin Med J (Engl) 116:99–103

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miura Y, Imagama S, Yoda M et al (2003) Is local bone viable as a source of bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion? Spine 28:2386–2389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abdul QR, Qayum MS, Saradhi MV et al (2011) Clinico-radiological profile of indirect neural decompression using cage or autograft as interbody construct in posterior lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis: which is better? J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 2:12–16

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Department of Science and Technology Program Funds of Jiangxi Province, China (No. 20123BBG70245 and 20123BBG70037).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China

    Zhili Liu, Jiaming Liu, Xinhua Long, Dong Yang, Shanhu Huang & Yong Shu

  2. Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China

    Yongming Tan & Laichang He

Authors
  1. Zhili Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiaming Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yongming Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laichang He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xinhua Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shanhu Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yong Shu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Shu.

Additional information

This work is supported by Department of Science and Technology Program Funds of Jiangxi Province, China (No. 20123BBG70245 and 20123BBG70037). No benefits in any form have been or will be received from any commercial party related directly and indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Zhili Liu and Jiaming Liu contributed equally to this study and share the first authorship.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Z., Liu, J., Tan, Y. et al. A comparative study between local bone graft with a cage and with no cage in single posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 1051–1057 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2016-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2016-6

Keywords

  • Posterior lumbar interbody fusion
  • Local bone graft
  • Cage
  • Spinal fuse