Skip to main content

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

European Spine Journal volume 23, pages 347–355 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation.

Method

A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and >1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging.

Results

Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p < 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods >1 year (p < 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group.

Conclusion

One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, Liu JC (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 7(4):379–386

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Min JH, Jang JS, Jung BJ, Lee HY, Choi WC, Shim CS, Choi G, Lee SH (2008) The clinical characteristics and risk factors for the adjacent segment degeneration in instrumented lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(5):305–309

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mura PP, Costaglioli M, Piredda M, Caboni S, Casula S (2011) TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S57–S60

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Freeman BJ, Licina P, Mehdian SH (2000) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with instrumented postero-lateral fusion: 5-year results in 60 patients. Eur Spine J 9(1):42–46

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T (2013) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22(9):2022–2029

    Google Scholar 

  6. Krishna M, Pollock RD, Bhatia C (2008) Incidence, etiology, classification, and management of neuralgia after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery in 226 patients. Spine J 8(2):374–379

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M, Einola S, Kalimo H (1993) The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 18(5):568–574

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor H, McGregor AH, Medhi-Zadeh S, Richards S, Kahn N, Zadeh JA, Hughes SP (2002) The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine 27(24):2758–5862

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC (2006) The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine 31(6):712–716

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kikuchi Y, Nakamura T, Takayama S, Horiuchi Y, Toyama Y (2003) MR imaging in the diagnosis of denervated and reinnervated skeletal muscles: experimental study in rats. Radiology 229(3):861–867

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gejo R, Kawaguchi Y, Kondoh T, Tabuchi E, Matsui H, Torii K, Ono T, Kimura T (2000) Magnetic resonance imaging and histologic evidence of postoperative back muscle injury in rats. Spine 258:941–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Remes V, Lamberg T, Tervahartiala P, Helenius I, Schlenzka D, Yrjönen T, Osterman K, Seitsalo S, Poussa M (2006) Long-term outcome after posterolateral, anterior, and circumferential fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. Magnetic resonance imaging findings after average of 17-year follow-up. Spine 31(21):2491–2499

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gille O, Jolivet E, Dousset V, Degrise C, Obeid I, Vital JM, Skalli W (2007) Erector spinae muscle changes on magnetic resonance imaging following lumbar surgery through a posterior approach. Spine 32(11):1236–1241

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamath S, Venkatanarasimha N, Walsh MA, Hughes PM (2008) MRI appearance of muscle denervation. Skeletal Radiol 37(5):397–404

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24(10):1023–1028

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Aepli M, Mannion AF, Grob D (2009) Translaminar screw fixation of the lumbar spine: long-term outcome. Spine 34(14):1492–1498

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Best NM, Sasso RC (2006) Efficacy of translaminar facet screw fixation in circumferential interbody fusions as compared to pedicle screw fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):98–103

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Beaubien BP, Mehbod AA, Kallemeier PM, Lew WD, Buttermann GR, Transfeldt EE, Wood KB (2004) Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro. Spine 29(19):E406–E412

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Burton D, McIff T, Fox T, Lark R, Asher MA, Glattes RC (2005) Biomechanical analysis of posterior fixation techniques in a 360 degrees arthrodesis model. Spine 30:2765–2771

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Razi AE, Spivak JM, Kummer FJ, Hersh DS, Goldstein JA (2011) Biomechanical comparison of translaminar screw versus pedicle screw supplementation of anterior femoral ring allografts in one-level lumbar spine fusion. Bull NYU Hosp J Dis 69(4):298–302

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY (2004) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength. Spine 30:123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee JC, Cha J-G, Kim Y, Kim Y-I, Shin B-J (2008) Quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration in the patients with the degenerative lumbar flat back using a digital image analysis: comparison with the normal controls. Spine 33(3):318–325

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Battié MC, Niemelainen R, Gibbons LE, Dhillon S (2012) Is level- and side-specific multifidus asymmetry a marker for lumbar disc pathology? Spine J 12(10):932–939

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO 3rd, Haider TT, Cammisa F, Zuchermann J, Balderston R, Kitchel S, Foley K, Watkins R, Bradford D, Yue J, Yuan H, Herkowitz H, Geiger D, Bendo J, Peppers T, Sachs B, Girardi F, Kropf M, Goldstein J (2007) Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine 32(11):1155–1162

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Glassman S, Gornet MF, Branch C, Polly D Jr, Peloza J, Schwender JD, Carreon L (2006) MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 6(1):21–26

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jang JS, Lee SH (2005) Clinical analysis of percutaneous facet screw fixation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 3(1):40–46

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tuli S, Eichler ME, Woodard EJ (2005) Comparison of perioperative morbidity in translaminar facet versus pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics 28(8):773–778

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tuli J, Tuli S, Eichler ME, Woodard EJ (2007) A comparison of long-term outcomes of translaminar facet screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation: a prospective study. J Neurosurg Spine 7(3):287–292

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carragee EJ, Don AS, Hurwitz EL, Cuellar JM, Carrino JA, Herzog R (2009) Does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc: a ten-year matched cohort study. Spine 34(21):2338–2345

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, Zhao FD, Huang Y, Yu HJ (2010) Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg 2(3):194–200

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC 3rd, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2(6):692–699

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bendix T, Sorensen JS, Henriksson GA, Bolstad JE, Narvestad EK, Jensen TS (2012) Lumbar modic changes—a comparison between findings at low- and high-field magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 37(20):1756–1762

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Habib A, Smith ZA, Lawton CD, Fessler RG (2012) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge. Minim Invasive Surg 1:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funded by Midwest Spine Institute Research Division and Abbott Spine.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Midwest Spine Institute, 1950 Curve Crest Blvd, Stillwater, MN, 55082, USA

    Glenn R. Buttermann

  2. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    William J. Mullin

  3. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

    Tague M. Thorson

Authors
  1. Glenn R. Buttermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tague M. Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William J. Mullin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn R. Buttermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buttermann, G.R., Thorson, T.M. & Mullin, W.J. Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study. Eur Spine J 23, 347–355 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2999-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2999-7

Keywords

  • Facet screw
  • Fusion
  • Lumbar
  • Minimally invasive
  • Outcomes
  • Pedicle screw