Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Instrumentation in lumbar fusion improves back pain but not quality of life 2 years after surgery
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics.
2013 (English)In: Acta Orthopaedica, ISSN 1745-3674, E-ISSN 1745-3682, Vol. 84, no 1, 7-11 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background and purpose Instrumented and non-instrumented methods of fusion have been compared in several studies, but the results are often inconsistent and conflicting. We compared the 2-year results of 3 methods of lumbar fusion when used in degenerative disc disease (DDD), using the Swedish Spine Register (SWESPINE). Methods All patients registered in SWESPINE for surgical treatment of DDD between January 1, 2000 and October 1, 2007 were eligible for the study. Patients who had completed the 2-year follow-up were included in the analysis. The outcomes of 3 methods of surgical fusion were assessed. Results Of 1,310 patients enrolled, 115 had undergone uninstrumented fusion, 620 instrumented posterolateral fusion, and 575 instrumented interbody fusion. Irrespective of the surgical procedure, quality of life (QoL) improved and back pain diminished. Change in QoL and functional disability and return to work was similar in the 3 groups. Patients who had undergone uninstrumented fusion had more back pain than the patients with instrumented interbody fusion at the 2-year follow-up (p = 0.02), although the difference was only 7 visual analog scale (VAS) units (95% CI: 1-13) on a 100-point scale. Moreover, 83% of the patients with uninstrumented fusion used analgesics at the end of follow-up as compared to 68% of the patients who had undergone surgery with one of the 2 instrumented fusion techniques. Interpretation In comparison with instrumented interbody fusion, uninstrumented fusion was associated with higher levels of back pain 2 years after surgery. We found no evidence for differences in QoL between uninstrumented fusion and instrumented interbody fusion.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 84, no 1, 7-11 p.
National Category
Orthopedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-196498DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.771300ISI: 000314897500003PubMedID: 23368746OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-196498DiVA: diva2:610273
Available from: 2013-03-12 Created: 2013-03-10 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(255 kB)249 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT03.pdfFile size 255 kBChecksum SHA-512
5a34dc4ca07b6e637b335f2ea8bbcfcb9e480d3d1bea4a35bbcce138a736a153297b80c8e535a2a18001406164358c38d31eeb9ad8c2b52b460ea8c7147f0bd9
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Robinson, YohanMichaëlsson, KarlSandén, Bengt
By organisation
Orthopaedics
In the same journal
Acta Orthopaedica
Orthopedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 250 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 554 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf