Comparision of the Two Groups between Autologous Bone Chips and Cage as Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Spondylolisthesis Patients

요추전방전위증 환자들에서 후방요추체간유합술로 자가골편 또는 Cage를 사용한 두 군간의 비교

  • Shin, Pill Jae (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Kim, Chang Hyun (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Moon, Jae Gon (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Lee, Ho Kook (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University) ;
  • Hwang, Do Yun (Department of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University)
  • 신필재 (한림대학교 의과대학 신경외과학교실) ;
  • 김창현 (한림대학교 의과대학 신경외과학교실) ;
  • 문재곤 (한림대학교 의과대학 신경외과학교실) ;
  • 이호국 (한림대학교 의과대학 신경외과학교실) ;
  • 황도윤 (한림대학교 의과대학 신경외과학교실)
  • Received : 1999.07.28
  • Accepted : 1999.09.27
  • Published : 2000.04.28

Abstract

Objective : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) with transpedicular screw fixation(TPSF) have many merits in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. The aim of this study was to compare cage PLIF group(PLIF using cage and TPSF) with chip PLIF group(PLIF using autologous bone chips and TPSF) as surgical treatment of spondyloisthesis. Methods : PLIF and TPSF were performed in 44 patients with spondylolisthesis from January 1994 to December 1998. The surgical methods were divided into two groups. One group was cage PLIF(20 patients), and the other group was chip PLIF(24 patients). We analyzed the change of anterior translation, change of intervertebral space height, fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications in two groups. Result : There was no significant difference in reduction and maintenance of anterior translation between two groups. Intervertebral space height was increased in the two groups at immediate postoperative state. At last followup, it was decreased compared to preoperative height in chip PLIF group. In cage PLIF group, last follow-up height was decreased compared to immedate postoperative height, but it was significantly increased compared to preoperative height. Fusion rates were 70.9% and 90% in chip PLIF group and cage PLIF group, respectively. Excellent and good clinical outcomes were 79.2% in chip PLIF group and 85% in cage PLIF group, but there was no statistical significance. Complications were screw fracture(1 case), CSF leakage(1 case) in chip PLIF group and screw loosening and retropulsion of cage(1 case), CSF leakage(2 cases) in cage PLIF group. Conclusion : PLIF using cage is better than PLIF using autologous bone chips in the maintenance of intervertebral space height and fusion rate. But there is no statistical difference of the clinical outcomes between the two groups. Further studies, especially on long term follow-up, should be considered.

Keywords