Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2022; 83(02): 153-160
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736324
Original Article

Long-term Quality of Life after Fusion of the Ventral Thoracic and Lumbar Spine

Katharina Jäckle 
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
,
Dominik Saul 
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
2   Kogod Center on Aging and Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Swantje Oberthür
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
,
Paul Jonathan Roch
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
,
Stephan Sehmisch
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
,
Wolfgang Lehmann
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
,
Lukas Weiser
1   Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Cage implantations and autologous pelvic bone grafts are common surgical procedures to fuse the spine in cases of spinal disorders such as traumatic fractures or degenerative diseases. These surgical methods are designed to stably readjust the spine and to prevent late detrimental effects such as pain or increasing kyphosis. Benefits of these surgical interventions have been evaluated, but the long-term well-being of patients after the respective treatments has not yet been examined. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical outcome for patients who received iliac crest or cage implantations.

Material and Methods Forty-six patients with traumatic fractures after they obtained an anterior fusion in the thoracic or lumbar spine (12 cages; mean age: 54.08 years; 34 pelvic bone grafts; mean age: 42.18 years) were asked to participate in the survey using a precast questionnaire according the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Spine Score. Twenty-nine of them provided the data requested.

Results Evaluation of the VAS scores of the patients, reporting at least 1 year after the surgery, revealed that cage implantations led to significantly better results with respect to all aspects of their daily life such as pain sensing, capability to undertake physical activities and exercise as compared with patients with autologous pelvic bone graft. Patients with autologous pelvic bone graft treatment reported a particularly poor overall satisfaction level concerning their long-term well-being.

Conclusions Patients with cage implantation reported a higher degree of long-term well-being. The data provide evidence for a positive impact on the postsurgery quality of life after cage implantation.

Keywords

clinical outcome - spine surgery - cage implantation - autologous tricortical pelvic bone graft

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


The present study was approved by the ethics committee of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (approval number: AN 10/9/19). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants.


Availability of Data and Material

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article (and its additional files).


Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: LW, SS, and WL. methodology: LW, SS, and WL. validation: KJ and LW. formal analysis: KJ, LW, and SS. investigation: KJ. resources: SS and WL. data curation: KJ. writing: original draft preparation—KJ; review and editing—KJ, SD, SO, PJR, SS, LW, and WL. visualization: KJ. supervision: LW and WL. project administration: SS and LW. All the authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


Informed Consent

Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.


Note

The study was performed according to the CONSORT guidelines.




Publication History

Received: 10 February 2021

Accepted: 25 July 2021

Article published online:
22 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Jansson KA, Blomqvist P, Svedmark P. et al. Thoracolumbar vertebral fractures in Sweden: an analysis of 13,496 patients admitted to hospital. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25 (06) 431-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Li Y, Yan L, Cai S, Wang P, Zhuang H, Yu H. The prevalence and under-diagnosis of vertebral fractures on chest radiograph. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19 (01) 235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wilke HJ, Kemmerich V, Claes LE, Arand M. Combined anteroposterior spinal fixation provides superior stabilisation to a single anterior or posterior procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83 (04) 609-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Siebenga J, Leferink VJ, Segers MJ. et al. Treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures: a multicenter prospective randomized study of operative versus nonsurgical treatment. Spine 2006; 31 (25) 2881-2890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Voris HC, Whisler WW, Hanigan W. Surgical management of destructive lesions of the spine. Neurochirurgia (Stuttg) 1978; 21 (04) 119-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Grobost P, Boudissa M, Kerschbaumer G, Ruatti S, Tonetti J. Early versus delayed corpectomy in thoracic and lumbar spine trauma. A long-term clinical and radiological retrospective study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020; 106 (02) 261-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Suda AJ, Schamberger CT, Viergutz T. Donor site complications following anterior iliac crest bone graft for treatment of distal radius fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2019; 139 (03) 423-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Haeseker B. Van Meekeren and his account of the transplant of bone from a dog into the skull of a soldier. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 88 (01) 173-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Heneghan HM, McCabe JP. Use of autologous bone graft in anterior cervical decompression: morbidity & quality of life analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009; 10: 158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Knop C, Oeser M, Bastian L, Lange U, Zdichavsky M, Blauth M. Development and validation of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Spine Score. Unfallchirurg 2001; 104 (06) 488-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. The measurement of pain. In: Pynsent PB, Fairbank JC, Carr A. eds. Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics. Oxford: Butterworth & Heinemann; 1993: 16-29
    Google Scholar
  • 12 McGrath PA. An assessment of children's pain: a review of behavioral, physiological and direct scaling techniques. Pain 1987; 31 (02) 147-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tyler DC, Tu A, Douthit J, Chapman RC. Toward validation of pain measurement tools for children: a pilot study. Pain 1993; 52 (03) 301-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cybulski GR, Douglas RA, Meyer Jr PR, Rovin RA. Complications in three-column cervical spine injuries requiring anterior-posterior stabilization. Spine 1992; 17 (03) 253-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dominkus M, Krepler P, Schwameis E, Kotz R. Surgical therapy of spinal metastases. Orthopade 1998; 27 (05) 282-286
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (19) 1628-1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY, Liu JT, Chiu CL, Sheu PC. Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (06) 1343-1349 , discussion 1349–1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Celik SE, Kara A, Celik S. A comparison of changes over time in cervical foraminal height after tricortical iliac graft or polyetheretherketone cage placement following anterior discectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6 (01) 10-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhou J, Xia Q, Dong J. et al. Comparison of stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages and iliac crest autografts for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011; 153 (01) 115-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23 (05) 310-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X. et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (07) 1539-1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Oezdemir S, Hahn P, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S. Der Vergleich zwischen Plasmapore beschichtetem Titan-Cage, Polyetheretherketon-Cage (PEEK) und autologem Beckenkammspan als intervertebralem Platzhalter bei der zervikalen ventralen Dekompression und Fusion (ACDF). Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. 75. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, 97. Tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädischen Chirurgie, 52. Tagung des Berufsverbands der Fachärzte für Orthopädie. Berlin: 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Kurz LT, Garfin SR, Booth Jr RE. Harvesting autogenous iliac bone grafts. A review of complications and techniques. Spine 1989; 14 (12) 1324-1331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fowler BL, Dall BE, Rowe DE. Complications associated with harvesting autogenous iliac bone graft. Am J Orthop 1995; 24 (12) 895-903
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sawin PD, Traynelis VC, Menezes AH. A comparative analysis of fusion rates and donor-site morbidity for autogeneic rib and iliac crest bone grafts in posterior cervical fusions. J Neurosurg 1998; 88 (02) 255-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Seiler III JG, Johnson J. Iliac crest autogenous bone grafting: donor site complications. J South Orthop Assoc 2000; 9 (02) 91-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD. et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (02) 134-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vaccaro AR, Whang PG, Patel T. et al. The safety and efficacy of OP-1 (rhBMP-7) as a replacement for iliac crest autograft for posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis: minimum 4-year follow-up of a pilot study. Spine J 2008; 8 (03) 457-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Buttermann GR. Prospective nonrandomized comparison of an allograft with bone morphogenic protein versus an iliac-crest autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J 2008; 8 (03) 426-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar