One-stage posterior debridement, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and instrumentation in treatment of lumbar spinal tuberculosis: a retrospective case series

2012 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-qi Zhang ◽  
Min-zhong Lin ◽  
Jin-song Li ◽  
Ming-xing Tang ◽  
Chao-feng Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Tuberculosis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Retrospective Case Series ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Posterior Debridement

scholarly journals Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) in the management of degenerative scoliosis: a retrospective case series

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 610-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos N. Paterakis ◽  
Alexandros G. Brotis ◽  
Athanasios Paschalis ◽  
Alkiviadis Tzannis ◽  
Konstantinos N. Fountas
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Retrospective Case Series

scholarly journals Computerized tomography evaluation of a resorbable implant after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Kuklo ◽  
Michael K. Rosner ◽  
David W. Polly
Keyword(s):  
Computerized Tomography ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Delayed Union ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Screw Breakage

Object Synthetic bioabsorbable implants have recently been introduced in spinal surgery; consequently, the indications, applications, and results are still evolving. The authors used absorbable interbody spacers (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) packed with recombinant bone morphogenetic protein (Infuse; Medtronic Sofamor Danek) for single- and multiple-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures over a period of 18 months. This is a consecutive case series in which postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scanning was used to assess fusion status. Methods There were 22 patients (17 men, five women; 39 fusion levels) whose mean age was 41.6 years (range 23–70 years) and in whom the mean follow-up duration was 12.4 months (range 6–18 months). Bridging bone was noted as early as the 3-month postoperative CT scan when obtained; solid arthrodesis was routinely noted between 6 and 12 months in 38 (97.4%) of 39 fusion levels. In patients who underwent repeated CT scanning, the fusion mass appeared to increase with time, whereas the disc space height remained stable. Although the results are early (mean 12-month follow-up duration), there was only one noted asymptomatic delayed union/nonunion at L5–S1 in a two-level TLIF with associated screw breakage. There were no infections or complications related to the cages. Conclusions The bioabsorbable cages appear to be a viable alternative to metal interbody spacers, and may be ideally suited to spinal interbody applications because of their progressive load-bearing properties.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoxin Fan ◽  
Xinbo Wu ◽  
Shunzhi Yu ◽  
Qi Sun ◽  
Xiaofei Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

The aim of this study was to directly compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in three-level lumbar spinal stenosis. This retrospective study involved a total of 60 patients with three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent MIS-TLIF or PLIF from January 2010 to February 2012. Back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scale were used to assess the pain, disability, and health status before surgery and postoperatively. In addition, the operating time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded. There were no significant differences in back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, SF-36, fusion condition, and complications at 12-month follow-up between the two groups (P>0.05). However, significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay were observed in MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). Moreover, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS than those in PLIF group at 6-month follow-up (P<0.05). Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF might be a prior option because of noninferior efficacy as well as merits of less blood loss and quicker recovery in treating three-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document