Comparative Study of Unilateral Minimal Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Mini-Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases: Retrospective Matched Analysis of Clinical and Radiologic Results in Minimum Two-Year Follow-Up

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. S115-S116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-Woo Hur
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spine Diseases ◽  
Mini Open

Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Kenji Ohzono ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
The Mean

Object A systematic review concerning surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) showed that a satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with adjunctive spinal fusion than with decompression alone. However, the role of adjunctive fusion and the optimal type of fusion remain controversial. Therefore, operative management for multilevel DS raises more complicated issues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to elucidate clinical and radiological outcomes after 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS with the least bias in determination of operative procedure. Methods Since 2005, all patients surgically treated for lumbar DS at the authors' hospital have been treated using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screws, irrespective of severity of slippage, patient age, or bone quality. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 20 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS and had been followed up for 2 years or longer (2-level PLIF group). They also analyzed data from 92 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent single-level PLIF for single-level DS during the same time period and had been followed for at least 2 years (1-level PLIF group). This second group served as a control. Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Fusion status and sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine were assessed by comparing serial plain radiographs. Surgery-related complications and the need for additional surgery were evaluated. Results The mean JOA score improved significantly from 12.8 points before surgery to 20.4 points at the latest follow-up in the 2-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 51.8%), and from 14.2 points preoperatively to 22.5 points at the latest follow-up in the single-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 55.3%). At the final follow-up, 95.0% of patients in the 2-level PLIF group and 96.7% of those in the 1-level PLIF group had achieved solid spinal fusion, and the mean sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine was more lordotic than before surgery in both groups. Early surgery-related complications, including transient neurological complications, occurred in 6 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (30.0%) and 11 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (12.0%). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was found in 4 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (20.0%) and 10 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (10.9%). Conclusions The clinical outcome of 2-level PLIF for 2-level lumbar DS was satisfactory, although surgery-related complications including symptomatic adjacent-segment disease were not negligible.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 560-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Michael Y. Wang ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mini Open

Object As minimally invasive approaches gain popularity in spine surgery, clinical outcomes and effectiveness of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with traditional open TLIF have yet to be established. The authors retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients who underwent mini–open TLIF with those who underwent open TLIF. Methods Between 2003 and 2006, 42 patients underwent TLIF for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis; 21 patients underwent mini–open TLIF and 21 patients underwent open TLIF. The mean age in each group was 53 years, and there was no statistically significant difference in age between the groups (p = 0.98). Data were collected perioperatively. In addition, complications, length of stay (LOS), fusion rate, and modified Prolo Scale (mPS) scores were recorded at routine intervals. Results No patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 24 months for the mini-open group and 34 months for the open group. The mean estimated blood loss was 194 ml for the mini-open group and 505 ml for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 3 days for the mini-open group and 5.5 days for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean mPS score improved from 11 to 19 in the mini-open group and from 10 to 18 in the open group; there was no statistically significant difference in mPS score improvement between the groups (p = 0.19). In the mini-open group there were 2 cases of transient L-5 sensory loss, 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision, and 1 case of cage migration that required revision. In the open group there was 1 case of radiculitis as well as 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision. One patient in the mini-open group developed a pseudarthrosis that required reoperation, and all patients in the open group exhibited fusion. Conclusions Mini–open TLIF is a viable alternative to traditional open TLIF with significantly reduced estimated blood loss and LOS. However, the authors found a higher incidence of hardware-associated complications with the mini–open TLIF.

Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Taneichi ◽  
Kota Suda ◽  
Tomomichi Kajino ◽  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Hiroshi Moridaira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support ◽  
The Mean

Object There are no published reports of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which two Brantigan I/F cages were placed per level through a single portal to achieve bilateral anterior-column support. The authors describe such a surgical technique and evaluate the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Methods Data obtained in 86 (93.5%) of the first 92 consecutive patients who underwent the procedure were retrospectively reviewed; the minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system. Disc height, disc angle, cage positioning in the axial plane, and fusion status were radiographically evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33.8 months. The mean improvement in the JOA score was 77.2%. Fusion was successful in 93% of the cases. According to the Farfan method, the mean anterior and posterior disc heights increased from 20.2 and 16.9% preoperatively to 35.9 and 22.7% at follow up, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean disc angle increased from 4.8° preoperatively to 7.5° at last follow-up examination (p < 0.01). Two cages were correctly placed to achieve bilateral anterior-column support in greater than 85% of the cases. The following complications occurred: hardware migration in two patients and deep infection cured by intravenous antibiotic therapy in one patient. Conclusions Unilateral TLIF involving the placement of two Brantigan cages per level led to good clinical results. Two Brantigan cages were adequately placed via a single portal, and reliable bilateral anterior-column support was achieved. Although the less invasive unilateral approach was used, the outcomes were as good as those in many reported series of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in which the Brantigan cages were placed via the bilateral approach.

scholarly journals A Prospective Randomized Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Cost utility from a Lower-middle-income Country Perspective and Review of Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (B) ◽  
pp. 636-645
Author(s):  
Nasser El-Ghandour ◽  
Mohamed Sawan ◽  
Atul Goel ◽  
Ahmed Assem Abdelkhalek ◽  
Ahmad M. Abdelmotleb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis have not been validated in many prospective randomized trials. AIM: We aimed to validate the safety and efficacy of TLIF and PLIF surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis using the clinical, radiographic, and cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: The data of surgically treated single-level spondylolisthesis patients were randomized prospectively into two groups. The groups were compared regarding demographics, perioperative complications, hospital stay, total expenditure, fusion rate, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication scale, and Odom’s criteria). A review of literature was done to compare the outcomes with the ones from higher-income nations. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent prospective randomization. The improvement in the clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up showed improvement in the TLIF group more than the PLIF group but with no significant difference. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the PLIF (p < 0.05), also, the blood loss was significantly less in the TLIF (p < 0.001). The complications frequency did not show any statistical significance between both groups and no significant difference in the patient’s post-operative patient satisfaction (p = 0.6). The mean hospital stay was non-significantly longer in the PLIF (p = 0.7). At 12-month follow-up, 93.3% of the TLIF patients were fused versus 86.7% of the PLIF (p = 0.5). The total cost of the TLIF was significantly less (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both PLIF and TLIF could achieve similar fusion rates and clinical satisfaction in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. The TLIF group was significantly better in terms of financial burden, operative time, and blood loss.

Obesity may be associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in spinopelvic-mismatched patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88
Author(s):  
Ping-Guo Duan ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Minghao Wang ◽  
Andrew K. Chan ◽  
Bo Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVEIn this study, the authors’ aim was to investigate whether obesity affects surgery rates for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis.METHODSPatients who underwent single-level TLIF for spondylolisthesis at the University of California, San Francisco, from 2006 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a minimum 2-year follow-up, single-level TLIF, and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Exclusion criteria were trauma, tumor, infection, multilevel fusions, non-TLIF fusions, or less than a 2-year follow-up. Patient demographic data were collected, and an analysis of spinopelvic parameters was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: mismatched, or pelvic incidence (PI) minus lumbar lordosis (LL) ≥ 10°; and balanced, or PI-LL < 10°. Within the two groups, the patients were further classified by BMI (< 30 and ≥ 30 kg/m2). Patients were then evaluated for surgery for ASD, matched by BMI and PI-LL parameters.RESULTSA total of 190 patients met inclusion criteria (72 males and 118 females, mean age 59.57 ± 12.39 years). The average follow-up was 40.21 ± 20.42 months (range 24–135 months). In total, 24 patients (12.63% of 190) underwent surgery for ASD. Within the entire cohort, 82 patients were in the mismatched group, and 108 patients were in the balanced group. Within the mismatched group, adjacent-segment surgeries occurred at the following rates: BMI < 30 kg/m2, 2.1% (1/48); and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, 17.6% (6/34). Significant differences were seen between patients with BMI ≥ 30 and BMI < 30 (p = 0.018). A receiver operating characteristic curve for BMI as a predictor for ASD was established, with an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.49–0.90). The optimal BMI cutoff value determined by the Youden index is 29.95 (sensitivity 0.857; specificity 0.627). However, in the balanced PI-LL group (108/190 patients), there was no difference in surgery rates for ASD among the patients with different BMIs (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONSIn patients who have a PI-LL mismatch, obesity may be associated with an increased risk of surgery for ASD after TLIF, but in obese patients without PI-LL mismatch, this association was not observed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document