Advertisement

Evidence for Efficacy of Pedicle-Based Systems

  • Jeremy Fairbank
Chapter

Abstract

There are now quite a range of randomized trials investigating spinal fusion and instrumentation of the lumbar spine in degenerative disorders. A meta-analysis of eight studies supports the conclusion that instrumentation increases fusion rates (Odds Ratio 2.3 (95% CI 1.1–4.8)), but not clinical outcome. My conclusion, looking at four studies where the role of pedicle screws can be analyzed, would be that using posterior instrumentation that includes pedicle screws will increase the fusion rate. But, it also increases length of surgery, the complication rate, the revision rate, and hence, the cost of surgery over an uninstrumented fusion. If we look down the line at the clinical outcome, there seems little to favour instrumentation over non-instrumented fusion. Pedicle screws are widely used to secure fixation of implants to the spine. Most spinal implant systems include pedicle screws in their inventory. This article summarizes evidence that pedicle screws work or fail in a variety of applications. Biomechanical test generally finds screws to be superior to other methods of fixation. Posterior implant systems seem more secure than no fixation, either with rigid or non-rigid systems.

Keywords

Pedicle Screw Fusion Rate Interbody Fusion Revision Rate Posterior Instrumentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilke H-J, Drumm J, Häussler K, Mack C, Steudel W-I, Kettler A (2008) Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 17(8):1049–1056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verlaan J, Diekerhof C, Buskens E, van der Tweel I, Verbout A, Dhert W et al (2004) Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature on techniques, complications, and outcome. Spine 29(7):803–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suk S, Lee C, Kim W, Chung Y, Park Y (1995) Segmental pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20(12):1399–1405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lehman R, Lenke L, Keeler K, Kim Y, Buchowski J, Cheh G et al (2008) Operative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with posterior pedicle screw-only constructs: minimum three-year follow-up of one hundred fourteen cases. Spine 33(14):1598–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winter R, Lonstein J, Denis F (2007) How much correction is enough? Spine 32(24):2641–2643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zdeblick TA (1993) A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine 18(8):983–991CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Angevine P, Dickman C, McCormick P (2007) Lumbar fusion with and without pedicle screw fixation: comments on a prospective, randomized study. Spine 32(13):1466–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischgrund J, Mackay M, Herkowitz H, Brower R, Montgomery D, Kurz L (1997) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with or without spinal instrumentation. Spine 22: 2807–2812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kornblum M, Fischgrund J, Herkowitz H, Abraham D, Berkower D, Ditkoff J (2004) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 29(7): 726–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    France JC, Michael J, Lauerman WC, Cain JE, Glover JM, Lawson KJ, Coe JD et al (1999) A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion: outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine 24(6): 553–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessburg P, Nordwall A, Group SLSS (2002) Chronic back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicentre randomized study from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 27:1131–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brox J, Sørensen R, Friis A, Nygaard Ø, Indahl A, Keller A et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 28(17):1913–1921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brox J, Reikerås O, Nygaard Ø, Sørensen R, Indahl A, Holm I et al (2006) Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain 122(1–2): 145–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson-MacDonald J, Fairbank J, Frost H, Yu L-M, Barker K, Collins R et al (2008) The MRC spine stabilization trial: surgical methods, outcomes, costs, and complications of surgical stabilization. Spine 33(21):2334–2340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson J, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated cochrane review. Spine 30(20): 2312–2320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuffield Orthopaedic CentreOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations