Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients

• Published in: Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976) Vol. 27; no. 23; p. 2674
• Main Authors: Christensen, Finn B, Hansen, Ebbe S, Eiskjaer, Søren P, Høy, Kristian, Helmig, Peter, Neumann, Pavel, Niedermann, Bent, Bünger, Cody E
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.12.2002
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Carbon; Carbon Fiber; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Internal Fixators - adverse effects; Lordosis - diagnostic imaging; Lordosis - etiology; Low Back Pain - diagnosis; Low Back Pain - etiology; Low Back Pain - surgery; Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Lumbosacral Region; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Prospective Studies; Radiography; Spinal Diseases - surgery; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation; Spinal Fusion - methods; Surveys and Questionnaires; Titanium - adverse effects; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1528-1159
• DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200212010-00006

A prospective randomized clinical study with a 2-year follow-up period was conducted. To analyze the effects of circumferential fusion using ALIF radiolucent carbon fiber cages and titanium posterior instrumentation on functional outcome, fusion rate, complications, and lumbar lordosis. Circumferential fusion has become a common procedure in lumbar spine fusion, both as a primary and salvage procedure. However, the claimed advantages of ALIF plus PLF over conventional PLF lack scientific documentation. From April 1996 through November 1999, a total of 148 patients with severe chronic low back pain were randomly selected for either posterolateral lumbar fusion with titanium CD-Horizon (posterolateral group) or circumferential fusion with a ALIF Brantigan cage plus posterior instrumentation. The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPR), and a questionnaire concerning work status assessed their outcomes. Both groups showed highly significant improvement in all four categories of life quality (DPQ) as well as in the back pain and leg pain index (LBPR), as compared with preoperative status. There was a clear tendency toward better overall functional outcome for patients with the circumferential procedure ( < 0.08), and this patient group also showed significantly less leg pain at the 1-year follow-up evaluation ( < 0.03) and less peak back pain at 2 years ( < 0.04). Sagittal lordosis was restored and maintained in the circumferential group ( < 0.01). The circumferential fusion patients showed a higher posterolateral fusion rate (92%) than the posterolateral group (80%)( < 0.04). The repeat operation rate including implant removal was significantly lower in the circumferential group (7%) ( < 0.009) than in the posterolateral group (22%). Circumferential lumbar fusion restored lordosis, provided a higher union rate with significantly fewer repeat operations, showed a tendency toward better functional outcome, and resulted in less peak back pain and leg pain than instrumented posterolateral fusion. The clinical perspective of the current study implies a recommendation to favor circumferential fusion as a definitive surgical procedure in complex lumbar pathology involving major instability, flatback, and previous disc surgery in younger patients, as compared with posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws alone.