• Proceedings of the KSME Conference
• /
• 2008.11a
• /
• pp.664-667
• /
• 2008

Since the advent of pedicle screw fixation system, posterior spinal fusion has markedly increased This intemal fixation system has been reported to enhance the fusion rates, thereby becoming very popular procedure in posterior spinal arthrodesis. Although some previous studies have shown the complications of spinal instruments removal, i.e. loss of correction and spinal collapse in scoliosis or long spine fusion patients, there has been no study describing the benefit or complications in lumbar spinal fusion surgery of one or two level. In order to clarify the effect of removal of instruments on mechanical motion profile, we simulated a finite element model of instrumented posterolateral fused lumbar spine model, and investigated the change of mechanical motion profiles after the removal of instrumentation.

• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.290-294
• /
• 2023

Generally, patients with severe burst fractures, instability, or neurological deficits require surgical treatment. In most cases, circumferential reconstruction is performed. Surgical methods for three-column reconstruction include anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches. In cases involving an anterior or lateral approach, collaboration with general or thoracic surgeons may be necessary because the adjacent anatomical structures are unfamiliar to spinal surgeons. Risks include vascular or lumbar plexus injuries and cage displacement, and in most cases, additional posterior fusion surgery is required. However, the posterior approach is the most common and anatomically familiar approach for surgeons performing spinal surgery. We present a case in which three-column reconstruction was performed using only the posterior approach to treat a patient with a severe lumbar burst fracture.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.50 no.3
• /
• pp.205-208
• /
• 2011

Objective : Retrospective analysis to compare the effect and complication of epidural patient-controlled analgesia (epidural PCA) with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) for the treatment of the post-operative pain after posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. Methods : Sixty patients who underwent posterior lumbar instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disease at our institution from September 2007 to January 2008 were enrolled in this study. Out of sixty patients, thirty patients received IV PCA group and thirty patients received epidural PCA group. The pain scale was measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Results : There were no significant difference between IV PCA group and epidural PCA group on the PCA related complications (p=0.7168). Ten patients in IV PCA group and six patients in epidural PCA group showed PCA related complications. Also, there were no significant differences in reduction of VAS score between two groups on postoperative 2 hours (p=0.9618) and 6 hours (p=0.0744). However, postoperative 12 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours showed the significant differences as mean of reduction of VAS score (p=0.0069, 0.0165, 0.0058 respectively). Conclusion : The epidural PCA is more effective method to control the post-operative pain than IV PCA after 12 hours of spinal fusion operation. However, during the first twelve hours after operation, there were no differences between IV PCA and epidural PCA.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Precision Engineering Conference
• /
• 2006.05a
• /
• pp.187-188
• /
• 2006

A 3-D finite element model of human thoracolumbar spine (T12-L2) was reconstructed from CT images. Various anterior and posterior instrumentation techniques were performed with long cage after corpectomy. Six loading cases were applied up to 10 Nm, espectively. The rotations of T12 with respect to L2 were measured and the stiffnesses were calculated as the applied forces divided by the segmental rotations. The posterior fixation technique increased the stiffness of the spine the most. The addition of anterior rod from 1 to 2 increased the stiffness significantly without posterior fixation, but no effect was found with posterior fixation. We found that different fixation techniques changed the stiffness of the spine.

• Asian Spine Journal
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.1017-1027
• /
• 2018

Study Design: This retrospective study was conducted including 18 patients who underwent posterior-only stabilization and fusion procedure for pseudoarthrosis in the ankylosed spine from October 2007 to May 2015. Purpose: This study aimed to describe the treatment outcomes in 18 patients with Andersson lesion (AL) who were managed using the posterior-only approach. Literature Review: AL is an unstable, localized, vertebral, or discovertebral lesion of the spine. It is observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. The exact etiology of this disorder remains unclear, and the treatment guidelines are not clearly described. Methods: We analyzed 18 patients with AL who were treated with posterior long segment spinal fusion without any anterior interbody grafting or posterior osteotomy. Pre- and postoperative radiography, computed tomography, and recent follow-up images were examined. The pre- and postoperative Visual Analog Scale score and the Oswestry Disability Index score were evaluated for all patients. Whiteclouds' outcome analysis criteria were applied at the follow-up. Moreover, at study completion, patient feedback was collected; all the patients were asked to provide their opinion regarding the surgery and were asked whether they would recommend this procedure to other patients and them self undergo the same procedure again if required. Results: The most common site was the thoracolumbar junction. The symptom duration ranged from 1 month to 10 years preoperatively. Most patients experienced fusion by the end of 1 year, and the fusion mass could be observed as early as 4 months. Pseudoarthrosis void of up to 2.5 cm was noted to be healed in subsequent imaging. In addition, clinically, the patients reported good symptomatic relief. No patient required revision surgery. Whiteclouds' outcome analysis score at the latest follow-up revealed goodto-excellent outcomes in all patients. Conclusions: ALs can be treated using the posterior-only approach with long segment fixation and posterior spinal fusion. This is a safe, simple, and quick procedure that prevents the morbidity of anterior surgery.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.53 no.1
• /
• pp.49-51
• /
• 2013

A case of traumatic spondyloptosis of the cervical spine at the C6-C7 level is reported. The patient was treated succesfully with a anterior-posterior combined approach and decompression. The patient had good neurological outcome after surgery. A-51-year-old female patient was transported to our hospital's emergency department after a vehicle accident. The patient was quadriparetic (Asia D, MRC power 4/5) with severe neck pain. Plain radiographs, computerize tomography and spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed C6-7 spondyloptosis and C5, C6 posterior element fractures. Gardner-Wells skeleton traction was applied. Spinal alignment was reachived by traction and dislocation was decreased to a grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Then the patient was firstly operated by anterior approach. Anterior stabilization and fusion was firstly achieved. Seven days after first operation the patient was operated by a posterior approach. The posterior stabilization and fusion was achieved. Postoperative lateral X-rays and three-dimensional computed tomography showed the physiological realignment and the correct screw placements. The patient's quadriparesis was improved significantly. Subaxial cervical spondyloptosis is a relatively rare clinical entity. In this report we present a summary of the clinical presentation, the surgical technique and outcome of this rarely seen spinal disorder.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.328-332
• /
• 2009

Objective : The purpose of this study was to establish new fusion criteria to complement existing Brantigan-Steffee fusion criteria. The primary purpose of intervertebral cage placement is to create a proper biomechanical environment through successful fusion. The existence of a traction spur is an essential predictable radiologic factor which shows that there is instability of a fusion segment. We studied the relationship between the existence of a traction spur and fusion after a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedure. Methods : This study was conducted using retrospective radiological findings from patients who underwent a PLIF procedure with the use of a cage without posterior fixation between 1993 and 1997 at a single institution. We enrolled 183 patients who were followed for a minimum of five years after the procedure, and used the Brantigan-Steffee classification to confirm the fusion. These criteria include a denser and more mature bone fusion area than originally achieved during surgery, no interspace between the cage and the vertebral body, and mature bony trabeculae bridging the fusion area. We also confirmed the existence of traction spurs on fusion segments and non-fusion segments. Results : The PLIF procedure was done on a total of 251 segments in 183 patients (71 men and 112 women). The average follow-up period was $80.4{\pm}12.7$ months. The mean age at the time of surgery was $48.3{\pm}11.3$ years (range, 25 to 84 years). Among the 251 segments, 213 segments (84.9%) were fused after five years. The remaining 38 segments (15.1%) were not fused. An analysis of the 38 segments that were not fused found traction spur formation in 20 of those segments (52.6%). No segments had traction spur formation with fusion. Conclusion : A new parameter should be added to the fusion criteria. These criteria should be referred to as 'no traction spur formation' and should be used to confirm fusion after a PLIF procedure.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.84-89
• /
• 2006

Objective : The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of two methods for stabilization and fusion : Postero-Lateral Fusion [PLF, pedicle screw fixation with bone graft] and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion [PLIF, cage insertion] for spinal stenosis and recurred disc herniation except degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods : Seventy one patients who underwent PLF [n=36] or PLIF [n=35] between 1997 and 2001 were evaluated prospectively. These two groups were compared for the change of interbody space, the range of segmental angle, the angle of lumbar motion, and clinical outcomes by Prolo scale. Results : The mean follow-up period was 32.6 months. The PLIF group showed statistically significant increase of the interbody space after surgery. However, the difference in the change of interbody space between two groups was insignificant [P value=0.05]. The range of segmental angle was better in the PLIF group, but the difference in the change of segmental angle was not statistically significant [P value=0.0l7]. Angle of lumbar motion was similar in the two groups. Changes of Prolo economic scale were not statistically significant [P value=0.193]. The PLIF group showed statistically significant improvement in Prolo functional scale [P value=0.003]. In Prolo economic and functional scale, there were statistically significant relationships between follow-up duration [P value<0.001]. change of interbody space [P value<0.001], and range of segmental angle [P value<0.001]. Conclusion : Results of this study indicate that PLIF is superior to PLF in interbody space augmentation and clinical outcomes by Prolo functional scale. Analysis of clinical outcomes showed significant relationships among various factors [fusion type, follow-up duration, change of interbody space, and range of segmental angle]. Therefore, the authors recommend instrumented PLIF to offer better clinical outcomes in patients who needed instrumented lumbar fusion for spinal stenosis and recurred disc herniation.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Precision Engineering
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.137-144
• /
• 2010

In general, spinal fusion surgery takes pressure off the pain induced nerves, by restoring the alignment of the spine. Therefore spinal fixation system is used to maintain the alignment of spine. In this study, a biomechanical study was performed comparing the SROM(Spinal Range Of Motion) of three types of system such as Rigid, Dynesys, and Fused system to analyze the behavior of spinal fixation system inserted in vertebra. Dynesys system, a flexible posterior stabilization system that provides an alternative to fusion, is designed to preserve inter-segmental kinematics and alleviate loading at the facet joints. In this study, SROM of inter-vertebra with spinal fixation system installed in the virtual vertebra from L4 to S1 is estimated. To compare with spinal fixation system, a simulation was performed by BRG. LifeMOD 2005.5.0 was used to create the human virtual model of spinal fixation system. Through this, each SROM of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation of human virtual model was measured. The result demonstrates that the movement of Dynesys system was similar to normal condition through allowing the movement of lumbar.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.322-327
• /
• 2009

Objective : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is considered to have the best theoretical potential in promoting bony fusion of unstable vertebral segments by way of a load sharing effect of the anterior column. This study was undertaken to investigate the efficacy of PLIF with cages in chronic degenerative disc disease with Modic degeneration (changes of vertebral end plate). Methods : A total of 597 patients underwent a PLIF with threaded fusion cages (TFC) from 1993 to 2000. Three-hundred-fifty-one patients, who could be followed for more than 3 years, were enrolled in this study. Patients were grouped into 4 categories according to Modic classification (no degeneration : 259, type 1 : 26, type 2 : 55, type 3 : 11). Clinical and radiographic data were evaluated retrospectively. Results : The clinical success rate according to the Prolo's functional and economic outcome scale was 86% in patients without degeneration and 83% in patients with Modic degeneration. The clinical outcomes in each group were 88% in type 1, 84% in type 2, and 73% in type 3. The bony fusion rate was 97% in patients without degeneration and 83% in patients with Modic degeneration. The bony fusion rate in each group was 81% in type 1, 84% in type 2, and 55% in type 3. The clinical success and fusion rates were significantly lower in patients with type 3 degeneration. Conclusion : The PLIF with TFC has been found to be an effective procedure for lumbar spine fusion. But, the clinical outcome and bony fusion rates were significantly low in the patients with Modic type 3. The authors suggest that PLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation would be the better for them.