Lumbar spinal fusion was introduced approximately 70 years ago and has evolved as a treatment option for symptomatic spinal instability, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative scoliosis. Many techniques evolved since then, from wiring, rods, pedicle screws, and recently inter-spinous fixation devices like the Aspen. Along its evolutionary trail, various methods for achieving circumferential fusion have arisen. Distinct from staged anterior/posterior fusion techniques, two methods of achieving an interbody fusion from a posterior approach have emerged: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Recently, the lateral approach for interbody fusion (XLIF) has became a more common technique, requiring in some cases, complemental posterior fixation with pedicle screws, facet screws or interspinous fixation devices like the Aspen device. In this study, we address the clinical and radiological outcome of a novel technique using standard PLIF interbody fusion and insertion of the Aspen device via posterior lumbar approach.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
50
Circunferential fusion with PLIF and postero-lateral fusion with the Aspen device
American British Cowdray Medical Center
Mexico City, Mexico DF, Mexico
RECRUITINGOswestry Disability Index Score Change
Change between Oswestry Disability Index between pre-operative and final 12 months socores
Time frame: 12 months
Rolland Morris Score
Change in score in the Rolland Morris Score (RMS)
Time frame: 12 months
Visual Analogue Scale
Change in pain measured by the visual analogue scale
Time frame: 12 months
Bone fusion (arthrodesis)
Adequate bone fusion measured by computed tomography (CT) scan
Time frame: 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.