Tsunehiko Konomi

Dr. Tsunehiko Konomi

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2013 in Experimental Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KFKanehiro Fujiyoshi
Kanehiro Fujiyoshi
TKTsunehiko Konomi
Tsunehiko Konomi
MYMasayuki Yamada
Masayuki Yamada
KHKeigo Hikishima
Keigo Hikishima
OTOsahiko Tsuji
Osahiko Tsuji
HOHideyuki Okano
Hideyuki Okano

1 December 2012 in NeuroImage
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TKTsunehiko Konomi
Tsunehiko Konomi
KFKanehiro Fujiyoshi
Kanehiro Fujiyoshi
KHKeigo Hikishima
Keigo Hikishima
YKYuji Komaki
Yuji Komaki
OTOsahiko Tsuji
Osahiko Tsuji
MNMasaya Nakamura
Masaya Nakamura

29 February 2020 in Asian Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TKTsunehiko Konomi
Tsunehiko Konomi
AYAkimasa Yasuda
Akimasa Yasuda
KFKanehiro Fujiyoshi
Kanehiro Fujiyoshi
YYYoshiyuki Yato
Yoshiyuki Yato
TATakashi Asazuma
Takashi Asazuma
A retrospective, single-center clinical study with follow-up of more than 24 months. To evaluate the union rates and relevant risk factors for non-union after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using porous-coated closed-box titanium spacers. Although the use of a closed-box interbody spacer for PLIF could avoid potential complications associated with the harvesting of autologous bone, few studies have reported detailed follow-up of fusion progression and risk factors for non-union in the early postoperative period. PLIF using closed-box spacers without filling the autologous bone was performed in 78 (88 levels) consecutive patients. Surgical procedures included PLIF using traditional pedicle screw fixation (PLIF, n=37), PLIF using cortical bone trajectory screw fixation (CBT-PLIF, n=30), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with traditional pedicle screw fixation (TLIF, n=11). Lateral dynamic radiography and computed tomography findings were investigated, and the relationship between the union status and variables that may be related to the risk of non-union was tested statistically. The overall bone union rates at 12 and 24 months were 68.0% and 88.5%, respectively. Incidences of bone cyst formation, subsidence, and retropulsion of spacers were 33.3%, 47.4%, and 14.1%, respectively. Union rates at 24 months were 94.6% in PLIF, 80.0% in CBT-PLIF, and 90.9% in TLIF. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that at 12 months postoperatively, the risk factor for non-union was age >75 years (p =0.02). In contrast, no significant risk factor was observed at 24 months. These findings demonstrated the efficacy of interbody closed-box spacers for PLIF without the need to fill the spacer with autologous bone. However, the risk of non-union should be considered in elderly patients, especially intra-operatively and during the early postoperative stage.

6 July 2020 in Spinal Cord
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
TKTsunehiko Konomi
Tsunehiko Konomi
KSKota Suda
Kota Suda
MOMasahiro Ozaki
Masahiro Ozaki
SHSatoko Matsumoto Harmon
Satoko Matsumoto Harmon
MKMiki Komatsu
Miki Komatsu
MNMasaya Nakamura
Masaya Nakamura

17 June 2022 in Global Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KMKeitaro Matsukawa
Keitaro Matsukawa
TKTsunehiko Konomi
Tsunehiko Konomi
KMKohei Matsubayashi
Kohei Matsubayashi
JYJunichi Yamane
Junichi Yamane
YYYoshiyuki Yato
Yoshiyuki Yato
Study Design: Retrospective case series. Objectives: To investigate the influence of screw size on achieving bone fusion in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods: In total, 137 consecutive patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent single-level PLIF at L4-L5 were evaluated. Factors investigated for their contribution to bone fusion included: 1) age, 2) sex, 3) body mass index, 4) bone mineral density, 5) intervertebral mobility, 6) screw diameter, 7) screw length, 8) screw fitness in the pedicle (%fill), 9) screw depth in the vertebra (%depth), 10) screw angle, 11) facetectomy, 12) crosslink connector, and 13) cage material. Results: Bone fusion was confirmed in 88.2% of patients. The comparison between fusion (+) and fusion (-) groups showed no significant differences in screw size. The %fill and %length were significantly greater in the fusion (+) group than in the fusion (-) group (%fill: 58.5% ± 7.5% vs 52.3% ± 7.3%, respectively, P = .005; %depth: 59.8% ± 9.7% vs 50.3% ± 13.8%, respectively, P = .025). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that %fill (odds ratio [OR]= 1.11, P = .025) and %depth (OR = 1.09, P = .003) were significant independent factors affecting bone fusion. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses identified a %fill of 60.0% and a %depth of 54.2% as optimal cutoff values for achieving bone fusion Conclusions: Screw size should be determined based on the screw fitness in the pedicle (%fill > 60%) and screw insertion depth in the vertebral body (%depth > 54.2%) according to individual vertebral anatomy in L4-L5 PLIF.

27 May 2021 in Spinal Cord
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MOMasahiro Ozaki
Masahiro Ozaki
KSKota Suda
Kota Suda
TKTsunehiko Konomi
Tsunehiko Konomi
SHSatoko Matsumoto Harmon
Satoko Matsumoto Harmon
MKMiki Komatsu
Miki Komatsu
NINorimasa Iwasaki
Norimasa Iwasaki