{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,28]],"date-time":"2026-01-28T22:51:20Z","timestamp":1769640680005,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":31,"publisher":"British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery","issue":"10","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2008,10,1]],"date-time":"2008-10-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1222819200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/online.boneandjoint.org.uk\/TDM"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2008,10]]},"abstract":"<jats:p> Between March 2000 and February 2006, we carried out a prospective study of 100 patients with a low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grade II or below), who were randomised to receive a single-level and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with either one or two cages. The minimum follow-up was for two years. At this stage 91 patients were available for review. A total of 47 patients received one cage (group 1) and 44 two cages (group 2). The clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were compared. <\/jats:p><jats:p> There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of post-operative pain, Oswestry Disability Score, clinical results, complication rate, percentage of post-operative slip, anterior fusion rate or posterior fusion rate. On the other hand, the mean operating time was 144 minutes (100 to 240) for patients in group 1 and 167 minutes (110 to 270) for those in group 2 (p = 0.0002). The mean blood loss up to the end of the first post-operative day was 756 ml (510 to 1440) in group 1 and 817 ml (620 to 1730) in group 2 (p &lt; 0.0001). <\/jats:p><jats:p> Our results suggest that an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either one or two cages in addition to a bone graft around the cage has a low rate of complications and a high fusion rate. The clinical outcomes were good in most cases, regardless of whether one or two cages had been used. <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620x.90b10.21078","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2008,9,30]],"date-time":"2008-09-30T21:24:21Z","timestamp":1222809861000},"page":"1352-1356","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":24,"title":["Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis"],"prefix":"10.1302","volume":"90-B","author":[{"given":"K. T.","family":"Suh","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"W. W.","family":"Park","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Korea Hospital, 1740-16 Daeyeon-Dong, Nam-Gu, Pusan 608-811, Korea."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"S.-J.","family":"Kim","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Nuclear Medicine, Pusan National University, School of Medicine, 1-10 Ami-Dong, Seo-Gu, Pusan 602-739, Korea."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"H. M.","family":"Cho","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"J. S.","family":"Lee","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"J. S.","family":"Lee","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"42","reference":[{"key":"R1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199011010-00023"},{"key":"R2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199009000-00026"},{"key":"R3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199701150-00016"},{"key":"R4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schlegel KF, Pon A. The biomechanics of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop 1985;193:115\u201319.","DOI":"10.1097\/00003086-198503000-00014"},{"key":"R5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2006.5.2.150"},{"key":"R6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200004010-00014"},{"key":"R7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199502000-00018"},{"key":"R8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 2002;11:198\u2013205.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-002-0422-x"},{"key":"R9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1529-9430(02)00536-3"},{"key":"R10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.bsd.0000140197.07619.8b"},{"key":"R11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, et al. The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylilisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine 2005;30:60\u20135.","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000155578.62680.dd"},{"key":"R12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200212150-00003"},{"key":"R13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s005860050007"},{"key":"R14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31814b1bd8"},{"key":"R15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4"},{"key":"R16","unstructured":"Molinari RW, Sloboda J, Johnstone FL. Are 2 cages needed with instrumented PLIF? a comparison of 1 versus 2 interbody cages in a military population. Am J Orthop 2003;32:337\u201343."},{"key":"R17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O\u2019Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271\u20133.","DOI":"10.1037\/t04205-000"},{"key":"R18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00003086-197403000-00004"},{"key":"R19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.BRS.0000097802.09156.07"},{"key":"R20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00002517-199212000-00008"},{"key":"R21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000218635.14571.55"},{"key":"R22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Elias WJ, Simmons NE, Kaptain GJ, Chadduck JB, Whitehill R. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage. J Neurosurg 2000;93:45\u201352.","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2000.93.1.0045"},{"key":"R23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/17453679908997819"},{"key":"R24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000154674.16708.af"},{"key":"R25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Chen HH, Cheung HH, Wang WK, Li A, Li KC. Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine 2005;30:92\u20136.","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000153703.80747.16"},{"key":"R26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000186466.01542.8c"},{"key":"R27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.BRS.0000113034.74567.86"},{"key":"R28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200106150-00012"},{"key":"R29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000150123.26869.48"},{"key":"R30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-198607000-00012"},{"key":"R31","unstructured":"Javernick MA, Kuklo TR, Polly DW Jr. Transforaminal lumber interbody fusion: unilateral versus bilateral disk removal: an in vitro study. Am J Orthop 2003;32:344\u20138."}],"container-title":["The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/online.boneandjoint.org.uk\/doi\/pdf\/10.1302\/0301-620X.90B10.21078","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/online.boneandjoint.org.uk\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1302\/0301-620X.90B10.21078","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/online.boneandjoint.org.uk\/doi\/pdf\/10.1302\/0301-620X.90B10.21078","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,8,16]],"date-time":"2021-08-16T18:38:30Z","timestamp":1629139110000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/online.boneandjoint.org.uk\/doi\/10.1302\/0301-620X.90B10.21078"}},"subtitle":["A COMPARISON OF FUSION WITH ONE OR TWO CAGES"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2008,10]]},"references-count":31,"journal-issue":{"issue":"10","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2008,10]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1302\/0301-620X.90B10.21078"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1302\/0301-620x.90b10.21078","relation":{},"ISSN":["0301-620X","2044-5377"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0301-620X","type":"print"},{"value":"2044-5377","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2008,10]]}}}