INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF SCIENCE ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

( Online- ISSN 2454 -3195 ) New DOI : 10.32804/RJSET

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 164    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

SHORT TERM CLINICAL AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME AFTER POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTER BODY FUSION IN CASES OF LUMBAR CANAL STENOSIS BY USING RODI SCORE ASSESSMENT

    2 Author(s):  DR.HARISHMURTHY , DR. T.V.S.REDDY

Vol -  5, Issue- 2 ,         Page(s) : 165 - 173  (2015 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/RJSET

Abstract

Background: Lumbar canal stenosis remains one of the most frequently encountered clinically important degenerative spinal disorders requiring operative treatment in the aging population. The simplest procedure is arthrodesis without instrumentation, but this has been found to be associated with a high rate of non-union. Objective: To study the short term clinical and functional outcome after posterior lumbar inter body fusion in cases of lumbar canal stenosis assessed by RODI score.

1. Katz JN, Harris MB, Clinical practice: lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med :2008, 358: 8 1 8-8 25.
2. Sairyo K, Katoh S, Sasa T, Goel VK, Vadapalli S, Masuda A, Biyani A, Ebraheim N: Athletes with unilateral spondylolysis are at risk of stress fracture at the contralateral pedicle and pars interarticularis: A clinical and biomechanical study. American Journal of Sports Medicine, in press
3. Lee CH, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ et al: Decompression Only Versus Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis in Elderly Patients Over 75 Years Old: Which is Reasonable? Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo), 2013.5a(3): 194-200
4. Truszczynska A, Rqpala K, Truszczynski O et al: Return to work after spinal stenosis surgery and patients' quality of life. lnt J Occup Med Environ Health, 2013, 26(3):1-7
5. Postacchini F . The diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of clinical and radiographic findings in 43 cases . ltal J Orlhop Traumatol 1985 , 1 1 . 5 - 21.
6. Tan SB . Spinal canal stenosis . Singapore Med Journal, 2003 ; 44 : 168-9.
7. Epstein NE , Maldonado VC , Cusick JF . Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, Surg Neurol 1998 ; 50 : 3 - 10
8. Alvarez JA , Hardy RH Jr . Lumbar spine stenosis: a common cause of back and leg pain . Am Fam Physician 1998 ; 57 : 1825 - 40
9. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, et al: An internal fixator for posterior application to short segments of the thoracic, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine: design and testing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; (203): 75-98.
10. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C: lnternal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; (203):7-17.
11. Hur JW, Kim SH, Lee JW, Lee HK: Clinical analysis of postoperative outcome in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc, 2007; 41 : 157-160
12. Hanley EN Jr. The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation. Spine 1995; 20: 1435-53.
13. Kwon BK, Berta S, Daffner SD, et al. Radiographic analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16:469-76.
14. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 2002; 394:64-72.
15. Whitecloud TS 3rd, Roesch \ 41y', Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 2001; 14:100-3.
16. France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion: outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24:553-60.
17. Mdller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis-a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25.1711-5.
18. Fritzell P, Hdgg O, Wessberg P, et al. 2001 Volvo award winner in clinical studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicentre randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:2521-34.
19. Hallett A, Huntley JS, Gibson JN. Foraminal stenosis and single-level degenerative disc disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing decompression with decompression and instrumented fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:1375-80.
20. Lin PM. A technical modification of Cloward's posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 1977; 1.1 18-24.
21. Diedrich O, Luring C, Pennekamp PH, Perlick L, Wallny T, Kraft CN. Effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion on the lumbar sagittal spinal profile. Z Orthop lhre G renzgeb. 2003; 1 4 1 (4) :425-32.
22. Cunningham BW, Polly DW Jr. The use of interbody cage devices for spinal deformity: a biomechanical perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;394:73-83.
23. Madan S, Boeree NR. Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"2002; 27:1526-42.
24. Hacker RJ. Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22.660-5.
25. Rajendra Nath, Sanjay Middha, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Rohit Nath. Functional outcome of surgical management of degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. lndian J Orthop. 1 0.4103/00 1 9-54 1 3.96380 2012 May-Jun; 46(3): 285-290
26. Audat Z, Moutasem , Yousef K, Mohammad,. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. singapore M o r iginal A r t icle ed J 2012; 53(3): 183-63. 
27. Dong-Hee Kim, MD, soon-Taek Jeong, MD, sang-Soo Lee, MD.posterior Lumbar lnterbody Fusion using a Unilateral single cage and a Local Morselized Bone Graft in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2009; 1 :21 4-221
28. D. Kok, M. Grevitt, F.H. wapstra and A.G. Veldhuizen. The open orthopaedics Journal, 2012, 6, 220-22s. The Memory Metal spinal system in a Posterior Lumbar lnterbody Fusion (PLIF) Procedure: A Prospective, Non-comparative study to Evaluate the safety and performance.
29. Atlas sJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB, chapin AM, patrick DL, Long JM, et al. The Maine Lumbar spine study, part lll. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. spine (phila pa 1976). 1996 Aug 1;21(15):1787-94
30. Ng LC, Sell P. Predictive value of the duration of sciatica for lumbar discectomy. A prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint surg Br. 2004 May;86(4):546- 9.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details