Radiological and clinical outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis with instability

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
S. Ganesan ◽  
K.L. Kalra ◽  
S. Acharya ◽  
R.S. Chahal
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Canal Stenosis ◽  
Canal Stenosis

Decompression of Lumbar Central Spinal Canal Stenosis Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jawad M. Khalifeh ◽  
Lara W. Massie ◽  
Christopher F. Dibble ◽  
Ian G. Dorward ◽  
Mohamed Macki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Canal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Canal Stenosis

scholarly journals S-line as Predictor of Clinical Outcome for Patients Undergone Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilin Lu ◽  
Jian Zhu ◽  
Xi Luo ◽  
Kaiqiang Sun ◽  
Jingchuan Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background: Some have speculated that LSTV has an impact on lumbar curve. A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate S-line as predictor of clinical outcome for patients undergone transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods: 126 patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were enrolled. S-line stands for the connecting line between the highest points of the iliac crests on both sides. The patients were divided into two groups according to the position of S-line, S-line (-) group included patients whose S-line were between L4 and L5, and S-line (+) group included patients whose S-line is above or below this range, which were divided into two subgroups. Their pre-operative imaging data about sagittal alignment were collected, including lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Clinical outcomes were measured using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) before the surgery and postoperatively. The correlation of S-line and clinical outcomes, as well as sagittal alignment and clinical outcomes, were analyzed.Results: LL, SS, PI, PT and PI minus(-) LL of S-line (-) group were (45.39°±12.68°), (30.27°±10.55°), (43.32°±12.22°), (13.05°±6.52°), (-2.07°±8.20°), respectively, and those parameters of S-line (+) group were (40.29±14.92), (35.70°±14.09°), (52.59°±17.07°), (16.89°±8.24°), (12.30°±9.98°), respectively. Significant difference were seen in the above parameters between S-line (-) and S-line (+) group. For S-line (-) and S-line (+) group, post-operative JOA score were (22.39±2.12), (20.26±2.46), post-operative VAS were (2.07±0.88), (3.14±1.47), the post-operative ODI were (8.36±3.28), (11.82±3.32), the improvement rate is (0.61±0.13), (0.55±0.15), Significant differences of those parameters are seen between S-line (-) group and S-line (+) group.Conclusion: S-line is a reliable predictor of clinical outcome for patients undergone transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Surgical Technique and Results in 24 Patients

Neurosurgery ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean A. Salehi ◽  
Rabih Tawk ◽  
Aruna Ganju ◽  
Frank LaMarca ◽  
John C. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Circumferential Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support

Abstract OBJECTIVE The advantage of anterior column support and fusion in addition to pedicle fixation in patients with degenerative spinal disorders has become increasingly clear. With the increase in popularity of this treatment, a variety of techniques have been used to achieve the goal of anterior column support, fusion, and segmental instrumentation. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion has been used since the late 1940s in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. We evaluated a modification to posterior lumbar interbody fusion called transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on 24 patients (9 women, 15 men) who underwent TLIF. The approach involved a unilateral laminectomy and inferior facetectomy at the level of fusion. The interbody fusion was achieved from this unilateral approach by performing discectomy, arthrodesis, and insertion of one or two titanium cages packed with autologous bone. The average age of the patients in this study was 42.6 ± 12.5 years. Five patients were smokers. Five cases were related to workmen's compensation. Seventeen patients' original symptoms were a combination of low back pain and radiculopathy. Ten patients had had a previous spine operation. RESULTS Eleven patients had L4–S1 TLIFs. The rest of the patients had a single-level TLIF (L2–S1). Average intensive care unit and floor days were 1.1 ± 1.0 and 5.8 ± 2.2 days, respectively. The number of days to ambulation was 2.8 ± 1.6 days. There were a total of six self-limited complications in 24 patients (including one transient neurological complication). The average follow-up time was 16.9 ± 9.1 months. Twenty-two patients had solid fusions. A modified Prolo scale (4 worst, 20 best) was used to evaluate the clinical outcome. The average score was 16.1 ± 4.1. CONCLUSION TLIF is a reliable and safe technique for interbody support that can be performed with excellent clinical outcome. In the authors' experience, TLIF offers excellent exposure with minimal risk. This applies particularly in cases of repeat spine surgery, in which the presence of scar tissue makes traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques difficult or impossible. In addition, TLIF seems to be a viable alternative to anteroposterior circumferential fusion and/or anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

scholarly journals Augmenting posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage improves clinical outcome, but not fusion rate, of posterior decompression

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 030006052091002
Author(s):  
Teoman Atici ◽  
Selcan Yerebakan ◽  
Cenk Ermutlu ◽  
Ali Özyalçın
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Objective This study was performed to compare fusion rates and clinical outcomes of posterior decompression by posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods This retrospective cohort study involved 157 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with instrumented PLF alone or instrumented PLF combined with TLIF from 2010 to 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: the PLF group (Group A), in which posterior decompression with instrumented PLF was performed, and the cage-augmented group (Group B), in which TLIF was added to the procedures described for the PLF group. Patient outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale score, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores) and fusion rates were compared. Results The fusion rate was similar between the two groups. Among patients with two- and three-level fusion, improvements in the clinical outcome scores were significantly greater in Group B than Group A. Conclusion Combining TLIF with PLF provides better clinical outcomes than PLF alone when multilevel fusion is indicated. TLIF augmentation does not improve the fusion rates in either single- or multi-level surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document