ANALYSIS OF INTERBODY VERSUS POSTEROLATERAL FUSION FOR LUMBAR SPONDYLOSIS

• Autor(a) principal: Mendonça,Rodrigo Góes Medéa de
• Data de Publicação: 2015
• Outros Autores: Assunção Filho,Carlos Alberto, Astur,Nelson, Gotfryd,Alberto Ofenhejm, Umeta,Ricardo Shigueaki Galhego, Caffaro,Maria Fernanda Silber, Meves,Robert, Avanzi,Osmar
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Coluna/Columna
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512015000400290
• topic: Spinal fusion; Treatment outcome; Spondylosis; Lumbar vertebrae

Objective : To evaluate and compare radiographic and clinical evaluation of patients undergoing interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion of the lumbar spine. Methods : Retrospective study of patients diagnosed with lumbar spondylosis that were surgically treated in the period from 2012 to 2014. The results were observed by clinical evaluation by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for low back and leg pain. We evaluated functional results and quality of life through the application of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires, respectively. The pre and postoperative condition were compared in Group 1 (interbody fusion) and Group 2 (posterolateral fusion), in addition to evaluation of fusion by means of post-operative radiograph. Results : A total of 30 patients of 36 were eligible, 12 in Group 1 and 18 in Group 2. The mean follow-up was 10.1 months. Statistical analysis showed similar scores for back and leg pain VAS, SF-36 function scores and Oswestry between groups with interbody and posterolateral fusion, and compared within these groups regarding the pre- and postoperative condition, and found no statistical significance. The successful fusion was similar in both groups, with 11 of 12 patients in Group 1 showing bone fusion and 17 of 18 in Group 2 showing arthrodesis. Conclusion : No clinical or radiographic differences between patients who underwent posterolateral or interbody fusion were observed. Both methods showed improvement in functional outcome and pain reduction.