Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Circumferential Lumbar Spinal Fusion With Brantigan Cage Versus Posterolateral Fusion With Titanium Cotrel–Dubousset Instrumentation: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study of 146 Patients

Christensen, Finn B. MD, PhD; Hansen, Ebbe S. MD DMSc; Eiskjær, Søren P. MD; Høy, Kristian MD; Helmig, Peter MD, PhD; Neumann, Pavel MD, PhD; Niedermann, Bent MD; Bünger, Cody E. MD, DMSc

Randomized Trial

Study Design. A prospective randomized clinical study with a 2-year follow-up period was conducted.

Objective. To analyze the effects of circumferential fusion using ALIF radiolucent carbon fiber cages and titanium posterior instrumentation on functional outcome, fusion rate, complications, and lumbar lordosis.

Summary of Background Data. Circumferential fusion has become a common procedure in lumbar spine fusion, both as a primary and salvage procedure. However, the claimed advantages of ALIF plus PLF over conventional PLF lack scientific documentation.

Methods. From April 1996 through November 1999, a total of 148 patients with severe chronic low back pain were randomly selected for either posterolateral lumbar fusion with titanium CD-Horizon (posterolateral group) or circumferential fusion with a ALIF Brantigan cage plus posterior instrumentation. The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPR), and a questionnaire concerning work status assessed their outcomes.

Results. Both groups showed highly significant improvement in all four categories of life quality (DPQ) as well as in the back pain and leg pain index (LBPR), as compared with preoperative status. There was a clear tendency toward better overall functional outcome for patients with the circumferential procedure (P < 0.08), and this patient group also showed significantly less leg pain at the 1-year follow-up evaluation (P < 0.03) and less peak back pain at 2 years (P < 0.04). Sagittal lordosis was restored and maintained in the circumferential group (P < 0.01). The circumferential fusion patients showed a higher posterolateral fusion rate (92%) than the posterolateral group (80%)(P < 0.04). The repeat operation rate including implant removal was significantly lower in the circumferential group (7%) (P < 0.009) than in the posterolateral group (22%).

Conclusions. Circumferential lumbar fusion restored lordosis, provided a higher union rate with significantly fewer repeat operations, showed a tendency toward better functional outcome, and resulted in less peak back pain and leg pain than instrumented posterolateral fusion. The clinical perspective of the current study implies a recommendation to favor circumferential fusion as a definitive surgical procedure in complex lumbar pathology involving major instability, flatback, and previous disc surgery in younger patients, as compared with posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws alone.

From the Spine Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital of Aarhus, Denmark.

Device status category: The devices and drugs are approved by the FDA or a corresponding national agency for this indication.

Conflict of interest category: No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Address reprint requests to Finn Bjarke Christensen, MD, PhD, Orthopedic Research Laboratory, University Hospital of Aarhus, Nørrebrogade 44, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. E-mail:

© 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.