SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Interbody”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The benefits of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in severe lumbar stenosis (Schizas C/D) remain uncertain. This randomized trial compared clinical, radiographic, and safety outcomes of OLIF and TLIF. METHODS: From November 2018 to December 2021, a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled 260 adults with single-level severe stenosis and instability. In total, 224 patients were randomized to OLIF or TLIF. Prespecified outcomes followed consolidated standards of reporting trials. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale back/leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with minimal clinically important difference thresholds of ODI ≥12-13 points or ≥30% improvement, and visual analog scale ≥1.5-2.0 points. Radiographic measures included disc height, lumbar and segmental lordosis, and canal cross-sectional area (CSA). Complications were recorded. Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, the trial was registered with ISRCTN.com , and all patients provided written informed consent. RESULTS: In total, 224 patients were randomized, 5 were lost to follow-up (TLIF n = 2, OLIF n = 3). Baseline features were comparable. OLIF was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, earlier ambulation, and shorter hospital stay (all P < .05). Both groups achieved significant, clinically meaningful improvements. OLIF showed greater back pain reduction at 3-6 months and 2 years ( P < .05) and superior ODI improvement at 3 and 6 months ( P < .001), although long-term ODI scores were similar. Radiographically, OLIF provided greater restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis (all P < .001) and demonstrated progressive CSA increase (dynamic decompression), whereas TLIF achieved immediate, sustained CSA enlargement. Fusion rates were comparable at 1-2 years. Complication rates were low and similar (7.3% TLIF vs 5.5% OLIF), with most OLIF-specific events transient. CONCLUSION: Both OLIF and TLIF yield improvements in severe lumbar stenosis. OLIF offers perioperative advantages, earlier functional recovery, radiographic restoration, and dynamic canal remodeling, supporting its role as an equivalent alternative for lumbar spinal stenosis with some secondary advantages.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The radiographic effect of cage subsidence on neuroforamina after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of cage subsidence on neuroforaminal area after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) utilizing computed tomography (CT). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Restoration of disc height via implantation of an interbody device provides an indirect decompression of the cervical neuroforamina. Interbody cage subsidence is a potential postoperative occurrence, but the effect of this on neuroforaminal area has yet to be characterized. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent one- to four-levels of ACDF utilizing an interbody device with anterior plating. Cage subsidence, neuroforaminal area, height and width were measured on CT scans preoperatively and at least 6 months postoperatively. Levels with a cumulative sum of cranial and caudal subsidence greater than 4 mm were classified as severely subsided, while levels with cumulative subsidence less than 4 mm were classified as non-severely subsided. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients (151 levels) were included in this retrospective analysis. Average endplate subsidence was 3.2 ± 1.9 mm. Non-severely subsided levels demonstrated a greater perioperative increase in neuroforaminal area (7.9 vs 2.1 mm2, p < 0.001), neuroforaminal height (1.1 vs 0.4 mm, p < 0.001) and neuroforaminal width (0.7 vs 0.1 mm, p < 0.001) compared to severely subsided levels. Interbody subsidence significantly predicted a decreased change in neuroforaminal height, width and area (p < 0.001). Severe subsidence was associated with an increased rate of pseudarthrosis, but similar reoperation rates and recurrent neurologic deficits between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Severe subsidence of interbody cages after an ACDF was associated with a decreased perioperative change in neuroforaminal dimensions. This decrease in the size of the neuroforamen may reduce the effect of indirect decompression of the nerve root.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of posterior cellular bonegraft options for single-level lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Iliac bone autograft (IBG) is osteoinductive/osteogenic/osteoconductive but requires an additional harvesting procedure with known morbidities. Bone morphogenic protein (BMP) is osteoinductive and effective in obtaining fusion but is used off label for posterior fusion, has multiple side effects, and is expensive. Stem cell bone products, both auto- and allograft are attractive osteoinductive alternatives that avoid morbidity related to the graft donor site and may have a better safety profile than BMP. Morcelized allograft bone is osteoconductive but not osteoinductive or osteogenic. PURPOSE: Evaluate and compare the effectiveness of 6 types of viable or osteoinductive bone graft material in obtaining a solid posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for single level anterior/posterior lumbar spinal fusion. The bone grafts were IBG, BMP, autogenous stem cells (MSC) from concentrated bone marrow aspirate (BMA), allograft MSC from bone marrow, adipose tissue, or amniotic fluid, combined with inert cancellous allograft (Allo). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, single-blinded randomized study of 6 cohorts and inert historical control. PATIENT SAMPLE: Elective anterior-posterior lumbar spinal fusion of 175 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments included pre and postoperative back and leg pain (VAS) scores, pain drawing, disability (ODI) scores, pain medication usage, and 1-year postoperative thin-cut CT scans (read by blinded radiologists). METHODS: Patients who were surgical candidates for a 1-level anterior/posterior lumbar fusion were randomized to 1 of 6 types of posterior bone graft alternatives: IBG, BMP, BMA, allograft MSC derived from bone marrow combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloBone), adipose derived MSC combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloFat), or amnion derived MSC combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloAm). Historical Allo patients served as a negative control group. Each group (n 27) had prospective outcomes and were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Fusion rate and outcomes were compared and referenced to Allo group. RESULTS: All but 5 patients had a solid ASF. The posterior fusion rates were 98% for IBG, 94% for BMP, 85% for BMA, 67% for cAlloBone, 64% for cAlloFat, 62% for cAlloAm, and 50% for Allo. Outcomes were significantly improved for all measures for all groups and there was no difference between groups except cAlloFat had slightly greater improvement in back pain in the 7-12 month follow-up period. BMP was the most expensive graft material; cellular allografts had a high-cost relative to fusion rate. CONCLUSIONS: For single level ASF/PSF, the PSF fusion rate was significantly greater for IBG and BMP followed by BMA. Various allograft MSC bone graft options resulted in lower fusion rates but may be greater than Allo. Outcomes were uniformly improved regardless of the type of graft used or the fusion status of the posterior fusion as long as the interbody fusion was solid. If bone graft cost savings is a consideration for PSF, then IBG has the greatest radiographic value, and Allo the greatest clinical value as long as the anterior interbody fusion is solid.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Feasibility and barriers to same-day physical therapy following lumbar fusion surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of same-day (postoperative day 0; POD0) physical therapy (PT) following lumbar fusion and to identify factors associated with failure to participate. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from patients undergoing single-level posterior spinal fusion (PSF), with or without anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) interbody fusion, between January and December 2024 at a single institution. A standardized POD0 PT protocol was implemented for eligible patients. Patients were categorized into two groups: successful POD0 PT (ambulatory on POD0) and unable to participate. Demographic and surgical variables were compared between groups. Reasons for inability to participate were recorded and categorized. RESULTS: Among 129 patients in whom POD0 PT was attempted, 84 (65%) successfully participated, while 45 (35%) were unable. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA class, operative time, estimated blood loss, or surgical approach between groups. Patients who successfully completed POD0 PT had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay compared to those who did not (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 5.8 ± 2.9 days, P < 0.001), with no differences in complication rates, discharge disposition, emergency department visits, or reoperation rates. The most common barriers to POD0 PT were postoperative pain, medical issues (e.g., orthostatic hypotension, nausea, dizziness), and anesthesia-related somnolence. Less common factors included postoperative restrictions and logistical issues such as brace availability. CONCLUSIONS: POD0 PT following lumbar fusion is feasible in the majority of patients and is associated with a shorter hospital stay without increased complications. Failure to participate was not associated with the baseline patient or surgical characteristics evaluated in this study. Instead, the most common barriers were postoperative pain, transient medical issues, and anesthesia-related somnolence, suggesting that optimization of modifiable perioperative factors may improve the implementation of POD0 PT.

Humans↗