الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 73 |  |  |
| | | from | 73 | | |
Abstract
Lumbar interbody fusion procedures, such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), are performed commonly nowadays due to the high prevalence of degenerative spinal conditions. These procedures involve removing the disk material and cartilaginous end plates from the involved intervertebral disk space and filling up the void with a spacer to maintain disk height and to decompress the neural foramina.
The interbody fusion devices have varying geometric configurations and wall thicknesses and are made of various materials, such as titanium, PEEK, and other polymers. The choice of a particular interbody fusion device affects the ability of surgeons and radiologists to assess fusion progression on radiographs and CT scans.
The literature supports that CT is the modality of choice for imaging bony detail in the spine, for accurate assessment of component position, particularly for positioning of pedicle screws, evaluating both spinal and construct alignment, and degree of osseous fusion.
This study aim to determine the effectiveness of three-dimensional computed tomography for assessment of lumbar interbody fusion of 30 patients who underwent PLIF surgery with more than 6 months. The indication of surgery were severe cauda equina and/or a radicular symptom with spinal instability, which had been unresponsive to conservative treatment more than 6 months. The concomitant diagnoses were, lumbar disc prolapse degenerative spondylolisthesis, isthmic spondylolisthesis, and Post-laminectomy instability.
Fusion according to 3D-CT, (6 levels 16.7%) were determined to be in group BSF-1 (non-fused), (8 levels 22.2%) in group BSF-2 (probably fused), and (22 levels 61.1%) in group BSF-3 (Fused). Additionally according to X-ray radiographs, (12 levels 33.3%) were determined to be in group BSF-1 (non-fused), (8 levels 22.2%) in group BSF-2 (probably fused), and (16 levels 44.4%) in group BSF-3 (Fused).
Moreover all screws were correct position, and no cage migration was detected in X-ray or CT scan. But 6 levels (16.7%) showed oesteolysis in CT scan which not detected in X-ray.
These results are comparable with other studies regarding CT scan for assessment of PLIF. All of which show CT scanning was more sensitive for assessment of fusion and abnormalities than plain radiography. Thus it can be concluded that CT scan better than plain radiography in assessment of PLIF.