This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by STAUFFER, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by COVENTRY, M. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by STAUFFER, R. N.
Right arrow Articles by COVENTRY, M. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1972;54:756-768.
© 1972 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

Anterior Interbody Lumbar Spine Fusion

ANALYSIS OF MAYO CLINIC SERIES

RICHARD N. STAUFFER M.D.1 and MARK B. COVENTRY M.D.1

1 From the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester

A consecutive series of eighty-three patients treated with anterior interbody disc excision and bone-grafting has been presented. A good clinical result was achieved by only 36 per cent of the patients and roentgenographic evidence of fusion at all levels grafted occurred in only 56 per cent. A one-level grafting procedure gave a better chance of fusion (68 per cent) and the lumbosacral interspace became solid slightly more frequently than more cephalad interspaces. Postoperative cast immobilization significantly improved the fusion rate.

We concluded that the reported differences in success with this technique are attributable chiefly to the interpretation of clinical and roentgenographic factors by different authors and to the type of patients selected for this procedure. We believe that this technique should be utilized as a salvage procedure only in those infrequent cases in which posterolateral grafting is inadvisable because of infection or unusally extensive scarring.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
H. M. Mayer
Total lumbar disc replacement
J Bone Joint Surg Br, August 1, 2005; 87-B(8): 1029 - 1037.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
P. C. MCAFEE
Current Concepts Review - Interbody Fusion Cages in Reconstructive Operations on the Spine
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 1999; 81(6): 859 - 80.
[Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
E. N. HANLEY and S. M. DAVID
Current Concepts Review - Lumbar Arthrodesis for the Treatment of Back Pain
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 1999; 81(5): 716 - 30.
[Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. C. T. CARPENTER, M. J. W. DIETZ, K. Y. K. LEUNG, D. A. HANSCOM, and T. A. WAGNER
Repair of a Pseudarthrosis of the Lumbar Spine. A Functional Outcome Study*{{dagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 1996; 78(5): 712 - 20.
[Abstract] [Full Text]