Sun, Apr 28, 2024
Volume 9 - Continuous Publishing
Iran J Neurosurg 2023, 9 - Continuous Publishing: 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tabibkhooei A, Hessam A, Kheradmand H, Nabiuni M, Ayoubpour M R. The Effect of Autologous Platelet-rich Plasma on Posterolateral Arthrodesis After Lumbar Spine Posterior Stabilization Surgery. Iran J Neurosurg 2023; 9 : 27
URL: http://irjns.org/article-1-370-en.html
URL: http://irjns.org/article-1-370-en.html
Alireza Tabibkhooei * 
1, Amin Hessam2 , Hamed Kheradmand2 , Mohsen Nabiuni2 , Mohamad reza Ayoubpour3
1, Amin Hessam2 , Hamed Kheradmand2 , Mohsen Nabiuni2 , Mohamad reza Ayoubpour3
1- Department of Neurosurgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , alireza.tabibkhooei@gmail.com
2- Department of Neurosurgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Radiology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Neurosurgery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Radiology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (780 Views)
Background and Aim: Lumbar spine posterior stabilization surgery is based on the formation of bone structures around the device placement. However, if these bone structures are not formed well, the conditions for pseudoarthrodesis are provided. In recent years, the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an induction of bone formation after spinal stabilization has received attention, but its results have been different and sometimes controversial. This study was conducted to accurately evaluate the effect of this method on arthrodesis after lumbar spine posterior stabilization surgery.
Methods and Materials/Patients: Twenty patients under the age of 70 years who were candidates for posterior spinal stabilization surgery were selected, and on the day of surgery, PRP was prepared from their venous blood, and at the end of the surgery, a combination of PRP and allograft bone was used on one side of the spine, and a combination of normal saline and allograft bone was used on the other side for arthrodesis. Then, the arthrodesis in the patients was evaluated with a computerized tomography (CT) scan in the third, sixth, and twelfth months after the operation by two radiologists based on the Hounsfield index.
Results: In all 20 patients, the arthrodesis was significant during the third, sixth, and twelfth months in the intervention side and in the control side and had a decreasing trend (P<0.001). In the comparison of the arthrodesis rate in the third and twelfth months after the operation, no significant difference was observed between the intervention and control groups (P=0.120 and P=0.405, respectively). In the sixth month, the rate of arthrodesis between the intervention and control groups was borderline statistically significant (P=0.061).
Conclusion: The use of PRP in the stabilization of the lumbar spine does not affect the increasing rate of spinal arthrodesis, and it may only accelerate the rate of arthrodesis in the sixth month.
Methods and Materials/Patients: Twenty patients under the age of 70 years who were candidates for posterior spinal stabilization surgery were selected, and on the day of surgery, PRP was prepared from their venous blood, and at the end of the surgery, a combination of PRP and allograft bone was used on one side of the spine, and a combination of normal saline and allograft bone was used on the other side for arthrodesis. Then, the arthrodesis in the patients was evaluated with a computerized tomography (CT) scan in the third, sixth, and twelfth months after the operation by two radiologists based on the Hounsfield index.
Results: In all 20 patients, the arthrodesis was significant during the third, sixth, and twelfth months in the intervention side and in the control side and had a decreasing trend (P<0.001). In the comparison of the arthrodesis rate in the third and twelfth months after the operation, no significant difference was observed between the intervention and control groups (P=0.120 and P=0.405, respectively). In the sixth month, the rate of arthrodesis between the intervention and control groups was borderline statistically significant (P=0.061).
Conclusion: The use of PRP in the stabilization of the lumbar spine does not affect the increasing rate of spinal arthrodesis, and it may only accelerate the rate of arthrodesis in the sixth month.
Article number: 27
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Guilan University of Medical Sciences.
Co-published by Negah Institute for Scientific Communication.
Contact Information:
IrJNS Office, Guilan Road Trauma Research Center, Poursina Hospital, Namjoo St, Rasht, Guilan, Iran.
Publisher Tel : +9821 45355555 , 45355000
Email: ir.journalofneurosurgery@gmail.com, info@irjns.org
Owned by Guilan University of Medical Sciences.
Co-published by Negah Institute for Scientific Communication.
Contact Information:
IrJNS Office, Guilan Road Trauma Research Center, Poursina Hospital, Namjoo St, Rasht, Guilan, Iran.
Publisher Tel : +9821 45355555 , 45355000
Email: ir.journalofneurosurgery@gmail.com, info@irjns.org
