Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparative analysis by the fused status at postoperative 1-year

From: Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion

 

Category

Fusion

(N = 65)

Pseudarthrosis

(N = 11)

P-value

(Uni)

P-value

(Multi)

Beta

SE

Age

 

63.8 ± 9.3

70.1 ± 9.7

0.041

0.028

0.138

0.063

Sex

M

24 (36.9%)

6 (54.5%)

0.269

NA

NA

NA

F

41 (63.1%)

5 (45.5%)

    

Cages

Unilateral

12 (18.5%)

7 (63.6%)

0.004

0.007

2.429

0.901

Bilateral

53 (81.5%)

4 (36.4%)

    

BMI

 

25.0 ± 2.4

27.0 ± 3.2

0.019

0.069

0.333

0.183

BMD

 

−1.0 ± 1.2

0.2 ± 1.7

0.006

0.033

0.708

0.332

Bone graft material

Local bone

8 (12.3%)

1 (9.1%)

0.759

NA

NA

NA

DBM

23 (35.4%)

3 (27.3%)

    

BMP

33 (50.8%)

7 (63.6%)

    

Previous laminectomy

Y

N

4 (7.4%)

61 (92.6%)

2 (18.2%)

9 (91.8%)

0.207

NA

NA

NA

Asymmetric disc wedginga

Y

N

9 (13.8%)

56 (86.2%)

2 (18.2%)

9 (91.8%)

0.656

NA

NA

NA

Number of Op. level

 

1.58 ± 0.50

1.55 ± 0.52

0.811

NA

NA

NA

Level

L3–4

2 (3.1%)

1 (9.1%)

0.890

NA

NA

NA

L3–4-5

23 (35.4%)

3 (27.3%)

    

L4–5

12 (18.5%)

2 (18.2%)

    

L4–5-S1

15 (23.1%)

3 (27.3%)

    

L5-S1

13 (20.0%)

2 (18.2%)

    

Smoking

Y

9 (13.8%)

2 (18.2%)

0.656

NA

NA

NA

N

56 (86.2%)

9 (81.8%)

    
  1. Mean and standard variation in continuous variables and number of cases in categorical variables
  2. M Male, F Female, BMI Body mass index, BMD Bone mineral density, DBM Demineralized bone matrix, BMP Bone morphogenetic protein
  3. a Five or more degree of asymmetric disc wedging on the radiographs