Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4

Radiographic assessment of fusion status

Tanvir F. Choudhri, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Sanjay S. Dhall, Jason C. Eck, Michael W. Groff, Zoher Ghogawala, William C. Watters, Andrew T. Dailey, Daniel K. Resnick, Alok Sharan, Jeffrey C. Wang, Michael G. Kaiser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The ability to identify a successful arthrodesis is an essential element in the management of patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. The hypothetical gold standard of intraoperative exploration to identify, under direct observation, a solid arthrodesis is an impractical alternative. Therefore, radiographic assessment remains the most viable instrument to evaluate for a successful arthrodesis. Static radiographs, particularly in the presence of instrumentation, are not recommended. In the absence of spinal instrumentation, lack of motion on flexion-extension radiographs is highly suggestive of a successful fusion; however, motion observed at the treated levels does not necessarily predict pseudarthrosis. The degree of motion on dynamic views that would distinguish between a successful arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis has not been clearly defined. Computed tomography with fine-cut axial images and multiplanar views is recommended and appears to be the most sensitive for assessing fusion following instrumented posterolateral and anterior lumbar interbody fusions. For suspected symptomatic pseudarthrosis, a combination of techniques including static and dynamic radiographs as well as CT images is recommended as an option. Lack of facet fusion is considered to be more suggestive of a pseudarthrosis compared with absence of bridging posterolateral bone. Studies exploring additional noninvasive modalities of fusion assessment have demonstrated either poor potential, such as with 99mTc bone scans, or provide insufficient information to formulate a definitive recommendation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)23-30
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Neurosurgery: Spine
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Pseudarthrosis
Arthrodesis
Spine
Guidelines
Bone and Bones
Tomography
Observation

Keywords

  • Diagnostic techniques
  • Fusion
  • Lumbar spine
  • Practice guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery
  • Neurology

Cite this

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4 : Radiographic assessment of fusion status. / Choudhri, Tanvir F.; Mummaneni, Praveen V.; Dhall, Sanjay S.; Eck, Jason C.; Groff, Michael W.; Ghogawala, Zoher; Watters, William C.; Dailey, Andrew T.; Resnick, Daniel K.; Sharan, Alok; Wang, Jeffrey C.; Kaiser, Michael G.

In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2014, p. 23-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Choudhri, TF, Mummaneni, PV, Dhall, SS, Eck, JC, Groff, MW, Ghogawala, Z, Watters, WC, Dailey, AT, Resnick, DK, Sharan, A, Wang, JC & Kaiser, MG 2014, 'Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: Radiographic assessment of fusion status', Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 23-30. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14267
Choudhri, Tanvir F. ; Mummaneni, Praveen V. ; Dhall, Sanjay S. ; Eck, Jason C. ; Groff, Michael W. ; Ghogawala, Zoher ; Watters, William C. ; Dailey, Andrew T. ; Resnick, Daniel K. ; Sharan, Alok ; Wang, Jeffrey C. ; Kaiser, Michael G. / Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4 : Radiographic assessment of fusion status. In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2014 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 23-30.
@article{26efe7a9fc6e4447876d349c705fde6a,
title = "Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: Radiographic assessment of fusion status",
abstract = "The ability to identify a successful arthrodesis is an essential element in the management of patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. The hypothetical gold standard of intraoperative exploration to identify, under direct observation, a solid arthrodesis is an impractical alternative. Therefore, radiographic assessment remains the most viable instrument to evaluate for a successful arthrodesis. Static radiographs, particularly in the presence of instrumentation, are not recommended. In the absence of spinal instrumentation, lack of motion on flexion-extension radiographs is highly suggestive of a successful fusion; however, motion observed at the treated levels does not necessarily predict pseudarthrosis. The degree of motion on dynamic views that would distinguish between a successful arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis has not been clearly defined. Computed tomography with fine-cut axial images and multiplanar views is recommended and appears to be the most sensitive for assessing fusion following instrumented posterolateral and anterior lumbar interbody fusions. For suspected symptomatic pseudarthrosis, a combination of techniques including static and dynamic radiographs as well as CT images is recommended as an option. Lack of facet fusion is considered to be more suggestive of a pseudarthrosis compared with absence of bridging posterolateral bone. Studies exploring additional noninvasive modalities of fusion assessment have demonstrated either poor potential, such as with 99mTc bone scans, or provide insufficient information to formulate a definitive recommendation.",
keywords = "Diagnostic techniques, Fusion, Lumbar spine, Practice guidelines",
author = "Choudhri, {Tanvir F.} and Mummaneni, {Praveen V.} and Dhall, {Sanjay S.} and Eck, {Jason C.} and Groff, {Michael W.} and Zoher Ghogawala and Watters, {William C.} and Dailey, {Andrew T.} and Resnick, {Daniel K.} and Alok Sharan and Wang, {Jeffrey C.} and Kaiser, {Michael G.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14267",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "23--30",
journal = "Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine",
issn = "1547-5654",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4

T2 - Radiographic assessment of fusion status

AU - Choudhri, Tanvir F.

AU - Mummaneni, Praveen V.

AU - Dhall, Sanjay S.

AU - Eck, Jason C.

AU - Groff, Michael W.

AU - Ghogawala, Zoher

AU - Watters, William C.

AU - Dailey, Andrew T.

AU - Resnick, Daniel K.

AU - Sharan, Alok

AU - Wang, Jeffrey C.

AU - Kaiser, Michael G.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The ability to identify a successful arthrodesis is an essential element in the management of patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. The hypothetical gold standard of intraoperative exploration to identify, under direct observation, a solid arthrodesis is an impractical alternative. Therefore, radiographic assessment remains the most viable instrument to evaluate for a successful arthrodesis. Static radiographs, particularly in the presence of instrumentation, are not recommended. In the absence of spinal instrumentation, lack of motion on flexion-extension radiographs is highly suggestive of a successful fusion; however, motion observed at the treated levels does not necessarily predict pseudarthrosis. The degree of motion on dynamic views that would distinguish between a successful arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis has not been clearly defined. Computed tomography with fine-cut axial images and multiplanar views is recommended and appears to be the most sensitive for assessing fusion following instrumented posterolateral and anterior lumbar interbody fusions. For suspected symptomatic pseudarthrosis, a combination of techniques including static and dynamic radiographs as well as CT images is recommended as an option. Lack of facet fusion is considered to be more suggestive of a pseudarthrosis compared with absence of bridging posterolateral bone. Studies exploring additional noninvasive modalities of fusion assessment have demonstrated either poor potential, such as with 99mTc bone scans, or provide insufficient information to formulate a definitive recommendation.

AB - The ability to identify a successful arthrodesis is an essential element in the management of patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. The hypothetical gold standard of intraoperative exploration to identify, under direct observation, a solid arthrodesis is an impractical alternative. Therefore, radiographic assessment remains the most viable instrument to evaluate for a successful arthrodesis. Static radiographs, particularly in the presence of instrumentation, are not recommended. In the absence of spinal instrumentation, lack of motion on flexion-extension radiographs is highly suggestive of a successful fusion; however, motion observed at the treated levels does not necessarily predict pseudarthrosis. The degree of motion on dynamic views that would distinguish between a successful arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis has not been clearly defined. Computed tomography with fine-cut axial images and multiplanar views is recommended and appears to be the most sensitive for assessing fusion following instrumented posterolateral and anterior lumbar interbody fusions. For suspected symptomatic pseudarthrosis, a combination of techniques including static and dynamic radiographs as well as CT images is recommended as an option. Lack of facet fusion is considered to be more suggestive of a pseudarthrosis compared with absence of bridging posterolateral bone. Studies exploring additional noninvasive modalities of fusion assessment have demonstrated either poor potential, such as with 99mTc bone scans, or provide insufficient information to formulate a definitive recommendation.

KW - Diagnostic techniques

KW - Fusion

KW - Lumbar spine

KW - Practice guidelines

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903891505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903891505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14267

DO - 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14267

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 23

EP - 30

JO - Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

JF - Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

SN - 1547-5654

IS - 1

ER -