Table 2.
Selected fusion levels based on end vertebrae
| Patient number | All patients combined | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 [n1 = 28]a | 2 [n2 = 32] | 3 [n3 = 32] | 4 [n4 = 32] | 5 [n5 = 32] | ||
| Number of instrumented levels | 10.6 ± 1.4 [8–13] | 11.0 ± 1.7 [8–14] | 12.8 ± 1.9 [8–16] | 10.9 ± 1.8 [8–15] | 10.8 ± 1.7 [7–14] | |
| UIV | ΔT2–T6 | ΔT1–T5 | ΔT1–T6 | ΔT2–T6 | ΔT3–T8 | |
| UEV + 5 | 1 (3%) | 3 (9%) | 4 (3%) | |||
| UEV + 4 | 4 (13%) | 5 (16%) | 4 (13%) | 3 (9%) | 16 (10%) | |
| UEV + 3 | 1 (4%) | 10 (31%) | 6 (19%) | 8 (25%) | 9 (28%) | 34 (22%) |
| UEV + 2 | 4 (14%) | 6 (19%) | 10 (31%) | 7 (22%) | 9 (28%) | 36 (23%) |
| UEV + 1 | 10 (36%) | 8 (25%) | 8 (25%) | 10 (31%) | 4 (13%) | 40 (26%) |
| UEV | 10 (36%) | 4 (13%) | 2 (6%) | 4 (13%) | 20 (13%) | |
| UEV −1 | 3 (11%) | 3 (9%) | 6 (4%) | |||
| LIV | ΔL1–L4 | ΔT12–L3 | ΔT12–L5 | ΔL1–L4 | ΔL2–L4 | |
| LEV + 1 | 10 (36%) | 10 (6%) | ||||
| LEV | 10 (36%) | 2 (6%) | 2 (6%) | 5 (16%) | 19 (12%) | |
| LEV −1 | 7 (25%) | 10 (31%) | 2 (6%) | 16 (50%) | 21 (66%) | 56 (36%) |
| LEV −2 | 1 (4%) | 15 (47%) | 0 (0%) | 12 (38%) | 6 (19%) | 34 (22%) |
| LEV −3 | 5 (16%) | 1 (3%) | 2 (6%) | 8 (5%) | ||
| LEV −4 | 2 (6%) | 24 (75%) | 26 (17%) | |||
| LEV −5 | 3 (9%) | 3 (2%) | ||||
UIV upper instrumented vertebra, LIV lowest instrumented vertebra, UEV/LEV upper/lower end vertebra
a Four surgeons indicated that patient 1 was not a suitable candidate for surgical treatment