Does 360° lumbar spinal fusion improve long-term clinical outcomes after failure of conservative treatment in patients with functionally disabling single-level degenerative lumbar disc disease? Results of 5-year follow-up in 75 postoperative patients

Article Figures & Data

Table 1

Patient treatment allocation and follow-up

Description

Allocation

93 were enrolled
75 received intervention
18 did not receive intervention

2 y

73 were evaluated (97.1% follow-up)

2 secondary surgical interventions (included in primary composite endpoint, excluded from secondary analyses)

2 missed visits (excluded from analysis)

5 y

56 were evaluated (74.7% follow-up)

5 secondary surgical interventions (included in primary composite endpoint, excluded from secondary analyses)

19 missed visits (excluded from analysis)

Table 2

Demographics and baseline characteristics of all patients enrolled and treated on protocol

	Data (n 75)
Age at surgery [mean (SD)] (y)	40.4 (7.6)
Male [n (%)]	34 (45.3%)
Race [n (%)]
White	59 (78.7%)
African American	5 (6.7%)
Hispanic	10 (13.3%)
Asian American	0 (0.0%)
Other	1 (1.3%)
Smoking status
Never	34 (45.3%)
Former	17 (22.7%)
Current	24 (32.0%)
Body mass index [mean (SD)] (kg/m²)	27.3 (4.4)
ODI score [mean (SD)] (out of 100)	62.7 (10.3)
Narcotic use as prior treatment [n (%)]	57 (76.0%)
Engaged in recreational activity [n (%)]	37 (49.3%)
Implant level [n (%)]
L3-L4	3 (4.0%)
L4-L5	22 (29.3%)
L5-S1	50 (66.7%)
Prior surgical treatment [n (%)]	23 (30.7%)

NOTE. Continuous and ordinal variables were analyzed by a Wilcoxon rank sum test; categorical variables were analyzed with the Fisher exact test to compare Fusion single level Randomized patients (F1R) with Pro- Disc-L single level Randomized patients (P1R).

Table 5

Radiographic outcomes at 5 years