title: [Comparison of clinical efficacies of single segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with cage versus autogenous morselized bone for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized controlled study].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the clinical efficacies of single segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with cage versus autogenous morselized bone for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 87 patients undergoing single segment TLIF were randomly divided into 2 groups. A cage was implanted into intervertebral space in group A patients while autogenous morselized bone in group B patients. Operative duration, blood loss, length of stay and cost of hospitalization of two groups were recorded. They were followed up at 1 week, 12, 24 months post-operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) fusion rates, intervertebral space and foramen height restoration, lumbar lordosis and postoperative complications were compared between two groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No significant inter-group difference existed in operative duration, blood loss or length of stay. However, the average hospitalization cost in group A were 18% higher than that of group B (P < 0.05). Both groups achieved excellent clinical outcomes within 2 years. ODI, VAS score improvement rates and postoperative complication rates were not statistically different. Lumbar fusion rate was 86.7% in group A versus 85.7% in group B after 2 years. And there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). The heights of intervertebral space and foramen in group A achieved a better recovery than those of group B. Both groups had similar improvements of lumbar lordosis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, usage of interbody cage is more effective in terms of recovery of intervertebral space and foraminal height compared with usage of bone graft. However it brings no better clinical efficacy while the usage of autogenous morselized bone is more cost-effective. Two grafting methods yield similar overall clinical outcomes.
authors.affiliation: Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266011, China.
authors.forename: Peisheng
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Xiaozhen
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Xuejing
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Qiao
authors.forename: Wennan
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Du
authors.forename: Dawei
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Luo
authors.affiliation: Email: xiujunzheng@hotmail.com.
authors.forename: Xiujun
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zheng
mesh_terms: D016025:Bone Transplantation; D006801:Humans; D055959:Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; D008159:Lumbar Vertebrae; D008161:Lumbosacral Region; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; D009422:Nervous System Diseases; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011184:Postoperative Period; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013123:Spinal Fusion; D013130:Spinal Stenosis; D016896:Treatment Outcome