Publication:
Augmenting posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage improves clinical outcome, but not fusion rate, of posterior decompression

dc.contributor.authorAtıcı, Teoman
dc.contributor.authorYerebakan, Selcan
dc.contributor.authorErmutlu, Cenk
dc.contributor.authorÖzyalçın, Ali
dc.contributor.buuauthorATICI, TEOMAN
dc.contributor.buuauthorYerebakan, Selcan
dc.contributor.buuauthorERMUTLU, CENK
dc.contributor.buuauthorÖZYALÇIN, ALİ
dc.contributor.departmentTıp Fakültesi
dc.contributor.departmentAnesteziyoloji ve Yoğun Bakım Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-9518-541X
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-8259-3695
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-3772-1699
dc.contributor.researcheridAAB-2795-2021
dc.contributor.researcheridEGQ-9946-2022
dc.contributor.researcheridA-5095-2018
dc.contributor.researcheridJHR-5447-2023
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-08T09:05:54Z
dc.date.available2024-07-08T09:05:54Z
dc.date.issued2020-04-01
dc.description.abstractObjectiveThis study was performed to compare fusion rates and clinical outcomes of posterior decompression by posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study involved 157 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with instrumented PLF alone or instrumented PLF combined with TLIF from 2010 to 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: the PLF group (Group A), in which posterior decompression with instrumented PLF was performed, and the cage-augmented group (Group B), in which TLIF was added to the procedures described for the PLF group. Patient outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale score, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores) and fusion rates were compared.ResultsThe fusion rate was similar between the two groups. Among patients with two- and three-level fusion, improvements in the clinical outcome scores were significantly greater in Group B than Group A.ConclusionCombining TLIF with PLF provides better clinical outcomes than PLF alone when multilevel fusion is indicated. TLIF augmentation does not improve the fusion rates in either single- or multi-level surgery.
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0300060520910025
dc.identifier.issn0300-0605
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0300060520910025
dc.identifier.urihttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0300060520910025
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11452/43032
dc.identifier.volume48
dc.identifier.wos000535939100001
dc.indexed.wosWOS.SCI
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSage Publications
dc.relation.journalJournal of International Medical Research
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectBack-pain
dc.subjectFusion
dc.subjectLumbar spinal stenosis
dc.subjectCage
dc.subjectLaminectomy
dc.subjectTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
dc.subjectInterbody fusion
dc.subjectResearch & experimental medicine
dc.subjectPharmacology & pharmacy
dc.titleAugmenting posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage improves clinical outcome, but not fusion rate, of posterior decompression
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.departmentTıp Fakültesi/Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Ana Bilim Dalı
local.contributor.departmentTıp Fakültesi/Anesteziyoloji ve Yoğun Bakım Ana Bilim Dalı
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationac435e38-cf12-4daf-9c63-b2173adafd98
relation.isAuthorOfPublication95736544-3429-4e55-b3ae-5ee564bd4060
relation.isAuthorOfPublication23f22fce-726b-4d34-ade7-6c3fa4d8449e
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryac435e38-cf12-4daf-9c63-b2173adafd98

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Atici_vd_2020.pdf
Size:
606 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format