Differences in time-to-fusion based on “absence of peri-graft radiolucency” and “trabecular bone bridging” criteria after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low and normal bone density

Objective To investigate the difference in time-to-fusion between two sets of interbody fusion criteria (absence of peri-graft radiolucency vs. trabecular bone bridging), and to determine the effect of osteoporosis on time-to-fusion. Materials and methods This retrospective study enrolled 79 patient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Skeletal radiology 2023-04, Vol.52 (4), p.733-742
Hauptverfasser: Choi, Tae Yang, Chang, Min-Yung, Lee, Seung Hyun, Park, Yung, Ha, Joong Won, Park, Jin Hyun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 742
container_issue 4
container_start_page 733
container_title Skeletal radiology
container_volume 52
creator Choi, Tae Yang
Chang, Min-Yung
Lee, Seung Hyun
Park, Yung
Ha, Joong Won
Park, Jin Hyun
description Objective To investigate the difference in time-to-fusion between two sets of interbody fusion criteria (absence of peri-graft radiolucency vs. trabecular bone bridging), and to determine the effect of osteoporosis on time-to-fusion. Materials and methods This retrospective study enrolled 79 patients treated for degenerative disease with one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion from February 2012 to December 2018, and who had both pre- and post-operative CTs. Patients were divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups based on L1 vertebral body attenuation values in pre-operative CT with cutoff of 90 Hounsfield units (HU) and 120 HU. The osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups included 36 patients (mean age: 69.9 years; 8 men and 28 women), 18 patients (mean age: 62.6 years; 7 men and 11 women), and 25 patients (mean age: 56.6 years; 15 men and 10 women), respectively. Fusion was assessed annually on post-operative CT images using absence of peri-graft radiolucency and trabecular bone bridging criteria. Time-to-fusion was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences between the groups were examined using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed. Results Time-to-fusion took significantly longer in the osteoporosis group in both fusion criteria (0.5 years in normal vs. 2 years in osteopenia vs. 3 years in osteoporosis for absence of peri-graft radiolucency; p  = 0.003, and 3 years vs. 4 years vs. 5 years for trabecular bone bridging; p  = 0.001). Only osteoporosis grouping was independent risk factor for slow trabecular bone fusion (hazard ratio:0.339; p  = 0.003). Conclusion The median time to fusion was significantly longer when using trabecular bone bridging criteria than absence of peri-graft radiolucency criteria.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00256-022-04219-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2730319059</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A736646125</galeid><sourcerecordid>A736646125</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-f53719e29ec85771c396ebf571e63c372b9925ff0580895d827e4d8f72f6be3a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kstu1DAUhiMEokPhBVggS2zYpPgS28myarlUqsQG1pbtHA-uEnuwE7Wz64PAY_ECfRKcmSkVCCEvbPl8_7npr6qXBJ8QjOXbjDHlosaU1rihpKtvHlUr0jBaUyLI42qFmWhqypr2qHqW8xXGREounlZHTDDMO8JW1c9z7xwkCBYy8gFNfoR6irWbs48BGZ2hR-Vxd_tdm7xgKDq0geTrddJuQkn3Pg6zLaHt3e0PpEO_wFPSBuw86IRMDIBM8v3ah_WC2OSnkkCjooeEChqyi0mPPugBDfNoisqHEjOx36JDK6W5jZ48hCmjaz99RUO83lULMY1FtyvTQ8h-2j6vnjg9ZHhxuI-rL-_ffT77WF9--nBxdnpZ26ahU-04k6QD2oFtuZTEsk6AcVwSEMwySU3XUe4c5i1uO963VELTt05SJwwwzY6rN_u8mxS_zZAnNfpsYRh0gDhnRSXDjHRl1wV9_Rd6FedUBl4oyQkjnPIHaq0HUD64WLZjl6TqVDIhGkF21Mk_qHJ6GL0te3C-_P8hoHuBTTHnBE5tkh912iqC1eIltfeSKl5SOy-pmyJ6deh4NiP0vyX35ikA2wO5hMIa0sNI_0n7C3-c27E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2775131525</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Differences in time-to-fusion based on “absence of peri-graft radiolucency” and “trabecular bone bridging” criteria after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low and normal bone density</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Complete Journals</source><creator>Choi, Tae Yang ; Chang, Min-Yung ; Lee, Seung Hyun ; Park, Yung ; Ha, Joong Won ; Park, Jin Hyun</creator><creatorcontrib>Choi, Tae Yang ; Chang, Min-Yung ; Lee, Seung Hyun ; Park, Yung ; Ha, Joong Won ; Park, Jin Hyun</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To investigate the difference in time-to-fusion between two sets of interbody fusion criteria (absence of peri-graft radiolucency vs. trabecular bone bridging), and to determine the effect of osteoporosis on time-to-fusion. Materials and methods This retrospective study enrolled 79 patients treated for degenerative disease with one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion from February 2012 to December 2018, and who had both pre- and post-operative CTs. Patients were divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups based on L1 vertebral body attenuation values in pre-operative CT with cutoff of 90 Hounsfield units (HU) and 120 HU. The osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups included 36 patients (mean age: 69.9 years; 8 men and 28 women), 18 patients (mean age: 62.6 years; 7 men and 11 women), and 25 patients (mean age: 56.6 years; 15 men and 10 women), respectively. Fusion was assessed annually on post-operative CT images using absence of peri-graft radiolucency and trabecular bone bridging criteria. Time-to-fusion was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences between the groups were examined using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed. Results Time-to-fusion took significantly longer in the osteoporosis group in both fusion criteria (0.5 years in normal vs. 2 years in osteopenia vs. 3 years in osteoporosis for absence of peri-graft radiolucency; p  = 0.003, and 3 years vs. 4 years vs. 5 years for trabecular bone bridging; p  = 0.001). Only osteoporosis grouping was independent risk factor for slow trabecular bone fusion (hazard ratio:0.339; p  = 0.003). Conclusion The median time to fusion was significantly longer when using trabecular bone bridging criteria than absence of peri-graft radiolucency criteria.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-2348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2161</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00256-022-04219-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36305913</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Age ; Aged ; Bone Density ; Bone grafts ; Bones ; Cancellous Bone ; Care and treatment ; Computed tomography ; Criteria ; Density ; Female ; Graft-versus-host reaction ; Grafting ; Humans ; Imaging ; Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Medicine, Experimental ; Middle Aged ; Nuclear Medicine ; Orthopedics ; Osteopenia ; Osteoporosis ; Osteoporosis - diagnostic imaging ; Pathology ; Radiology ; Rank tests ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Scientific Article ; Spinal Fusion ; Vertebrae</subject><ispartof>Skeletal radiology, 2023-04, Vol.52 (4), p.733-742</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Skeletal Society (ISS) 2022. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Skeletal Society (ISS).</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-f53719e29ec85771c396ebf571e63c372b9925ff0580895d827e4d8f72f6be3a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-f53719e29ec85771c396ebf571e63c372b9925ff0580895d827e4d8f72f6be3a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1482-9042</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00256-022-04219-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00256-022-04219-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36305913$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Choi, Tae Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Min-Yung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Seung Hyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Yung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ha, Joong Won</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Jin Hyun</creatorcontrib><title>Differences in time-to-fusion based on “absence of peri-graft radiolucency” and “trabecular bone bridging” criteria after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low and normal bone density</title><title>Skeletal radiology</title><addtitle>Skeletal Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Skeletal Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective To investigate the difference in time-to-fusion between two sets of interbody fusion criteria (absence of peri-graft radiolucency vs. trabecular bone bridging), and to determine the effect of osteoporosis on time-to-fusion. Materials and methods This retrospective study enrolled 79 patients treated for degenerative disease with one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion from February 2012 to December 2018, and who had both pre- and post-operative CTs. Patients were divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups based on L1 vertebral body attenuation values in pre-operative CT with cutoff of 90 Hounsfield units (HU) and 120 HU. The osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups included 36 patients (mean age: 69.9 years; 8 men and 28 women), 18 patients (mean age: 62.6 years; 7 men and 11 women), and 25 patients (mean age: 56.6 years; 15 men and 10 women), respectively. Fusion was assessed annually on post-operative CT images using absence of peri-graft radiolucency and trabecular bone bridging criteria. Time-to-fusion was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences between the groups were examined using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed. Results Time-to-fusion took significantly longer in the osteoporosis group in both fusion criteria (0.5 years in normal vs. 2 years in osteopenia vs. 3 years in osteoporosis for absence of peri-graft radiolucency; p  = 0.003, and 3 years vs. 4 years vs. 5 years for trabecular bone bridging; p  = 0.001). Only osteoporosis grouping was independent risk factor for slow trabecular bone fusion (hazard ratio:0.339; p  = 0.003). Conclusion The median time to fusion was significantly longer when using trabecular bone bridging criteria than absence of peri-graft radiolucency criteria.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>Bone grafts</subject><subject>Bones</subject><subject>Cancellous Bone</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Density</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Graft-versus-host reaction</subject><subject>Grafting</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Osteopenia</subject><subject>Osteoporosis</subject><subject>Osteoporosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Rank tests</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Scientific Article</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion</subject><subject>Vertebrae</subject><issn>0364-2348</issn><issn>1432-2161</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kstu1DAUhiMEokPhBVggS2zYpPgS28myarlUqsQG1pbtHA-uEnuwE7Wz64PAY_ECfRKcmSkVCCEvbPl8_7npr6qXBJ8QjOXbjDHlosaU1rihpKtvHlUr0jBaUyLI42qFmWhqypr2qHqW8xXGREounlZHTDDMO8JW1c9z7xwkCBYy8gFNfoR6irWbs48BGZ2hR-Vxd_tdm7xgKDq0geTrddJuQkn3Pg6zLaHt3e0PpEO_wFPSBuw86IRMDIBM8v3ah_WC2OSnkkCjooeEChqyi0mPPugBDfNoisqHEjOx36JDK6W5jZ48hCmjaz99RUO83lULMY1FtyvTQ8h-2j6vnjg9ZHhxuI-rL-_ffT77WF9--nBxdnpZ26ahU-04k6QD2oFtuZTEsk6AcVwSEMwySU3XUe4c5i1uO963VELTt05SJwwwzY6rN_u8mxS_zZAnNfpsYRh0gDhnRSXDjHRl1wV9_Rd6FedUBl4oyQkjnPIHaq0HUD64WLZjl6TqVDIhGkF21Mk_qHJ6GL0te3C-_P8hoHuBTTHnBE5tkh912iqC1eIltfeSKl5SOy-pmyJ6deh4NiP0vyX35ikA2wO5hMIa0sNI_0n7C3-c27E</recordid><startdate>20230401</startdate><enddate>20230401</enddate><creator>Choi, Tae Yang</creator><creator>Chang, Min-Yung</creator><creator>Lee, Seung Hyun</creator><creator>Park, Yung</creator><creator>Ha, Joong Won</creator><creator>Park, Jin Hyun</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-9042</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230401</creationdate><title>Differences in time-to-fusion based on “absence of peri-graft radiolucency” and “trabecular bone bridging” criteria after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low and normal bone density</title><author>Choi, Tae Yang ; Chang, Min-Yung ; Lee, Seung Hyun ; Park, Yung ; Ha, Joong Won ; Park, Jin Hyun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-f53719e29ec85771c396ebf571e63c372b9925ff0580895d827e4d8f72f6be3a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>Bone grafts</topic><topic>Bones</topic><topic>Cancellous Bone</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Density</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Graft-versus-host reaction</topic><topic>Grafting</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Osteopenia</topic><topic>Osteoporosis</topic><topic>Osteoporosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Rank tests</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Scientific Article</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion</topic><topic>Vertebrae</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Choi, Tae Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Min-Yung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Seung Hyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Yung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ha, Joong Won</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Jin Hyun</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Skeletal radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Choi, Tae Yang</au><au>Chang, Min-Yung</au><au>Lee, Seung Hyun</au><au>Park, Yung</au><au>Ha, Joong Won</au><au>Park, Jin Hyun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Differences in time-to-fusion based on “absence of peri-graft radiolucency” and “trabecular bone bridging” criteria after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low and normal bone density</atitle><jtitle>Skeletal radiology</jtitle><stitle>Skeletal Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Skeletal Radiol</addtitle><date>2023-04-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>733</spage><epage>742</epage><pages>733-742</pages><issn>0364-2348</issn><eissn>1432-2161</eissn><abstract>Objective To investigate the difference in time-to-fusion between two sets of interbody fusion criteria (absence of peri-graft radiolucency vs. trabecular bone bridging), and to determine the effect of osteoporosis on time-to-fusion. Materials and methods This retrospective study enrolled 79 patients treated for degenerative disease with one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion from February 2012 to December 2018, and who had both pre- and post-operative CTs. Patients were divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups based on L1 vertebral body attenuation values in pre-operative CT with cutoff of 90 Hounsfield units (HU) and 120 HU. The osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups included 36 patients (mean age: 69.9 years; 8 men and 28 women), 18 patients (mean age: 62.6 years; 7 men and 11 women), and 25 patients (mean age: 56.6 years; 15 men and 10 women), respectively. Fusion was assessed annually on post-operative CT images using absence of peri-graft radiolucency and trabecular bone bridging criteria. Time-to-fusion was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences between the groups were examined using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed. Results Time-to-fusion took significantly longer in the osteoporosis group in both fusion criteria (0.5 years in normal vs. 2 years in osteopenia vs. 3 years in osteoporosis for absence of peri-graft radiolucency; p  = 0.003, and 3 years vs. 4 years vs. 5 years for trabecular bone bridging; p  = 0.001). Only osteoporosis grouping was independent risk factor for slow trabecular bone fusion (hazard ratio:0.339; p  = 0.003). Conclusion The median time to fusion was significantly longer when using trabecular bone bridging criteria than absence of peri-graft radiolucency criteria.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>36305913</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00256-022-04219-x</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-9042</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0364-2348
ispartof Skeletal radiology, 2023-04, Vol.52 (4), p.733-742
issn 0364-2348
1432-2161
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2730319059
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Complete Journals
subjects Age
Aged
Bone Density
Bone grafts
Bones
Cancellous Bone
Care and treatment
Computed tomography
Criteria
Density
Female
Graft-versus-host reaction
Grafting
Humans
Imaging
Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Male
Medical research
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Medicine, Experimental
Middle Aged
Nuclear Medicine
Orthopedics
Osteopenia
Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis - diagnostic imaging
Pathology
Radiology
Rank tests
Retrospective Studies
Risk factors
Scientific Article
Spinal Fusion
Vertebrae
title Differences in time-to-fusion based on “absence of peri-graft radiolucency” and “trabecular bone bridging” criteria after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low and normal bone density
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T14%3A44%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Differences%20in%20time-to-fusion%20based%20on%20%E2%80%9Cabsence%20of%20peri-graft%20radiolucency%E2%80%9D%20and%20%E2%80%9Ctrabecular%20bone%20bridging%E2%80%9D%20criteria%20after%20transforaminal%20lumbar%20interbody%20fusion%20in%20patients%20with%20low%20and%20normal%20bone%20density&rft.jtitle=Skeletal%20radiology&rft.au=Choi,%20Tae%20Yang&rft.date=2023-04-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=733&rft.epage=742&rft.pages=733-742&rft.issn=0364-2348&rft.eissn=1432-2161&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00256-022-04219-x&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA736646125%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2775131525&rft_id=info:pmid/36305913&rft_galeid=A736646125&rfr_iscdi=true