![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1988 the Editor contributed Chapter 19 to the Cauthen textbook on Lumbar Spine Surgery devoted to the subject of avoiding future back surgery failures. It is interesting to note that there is little evidence as the 21st century begins that the observations made in 1988 have been taken to heart by the majority the spine surgery community. The incidence of failed back surgery cases remains unacceptably high. Reprinted below is the section on the subject of "Fusion." The conclusion that: The future belongs to flexible nonmetallic stabilization devices, continues to be most valid. |
|
|
The continuing use of multilevel rigid fusion for the primary treatment of low back pain is in great need for change. The advent of modern imaging has continually documented the fact that many patients who had multi-level fusions in past years are now presenting with secondary adjacent level degeneration of the discs and facet joints (the “transitional” syndrome"). Chronic local stress to adjacent motion segments, as well as the pelvis, is created in rigid fusion. The
requirement for both instrumentation and
bony fusion represents a long and costly surgical
procedure for the patient, often involving
significant blood loss and replacement,
with lengthy hospitalization. Another disadvantage
of metallic fusion devices is subsequent
reduction in quality of postoperative
imaging techniques. These liabilities represent
a persuasive argument for reexamination
of the concept of fusion as
a treatment
modality.
Evidence suggests that a more logical approach
would be that of flexible (energy absorbing) stabilization rather than
multilevel rigid fusion. By basing future instrumentation
design on the principle of
stabilization
rather than fusion, improved clinical
success, decrease in FBSS,
and
improved
economics appear possible. The future
still belongs to flexible nonmetallic stabilization
devices.
|
|
|
|