scholarly journals Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rongqing Qin ◽  
Tong Wu ◽  
Hongpeng Liu ◽  
Bing Zhou ◽  
Pin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Slip Ratio ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Time Point

AbstractThis was a retrospective study. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS). 81 patients with LDS grades 1 and 2 treated in our spinal department from January 2014 to July 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The MIS-TLIF group included 23 males and 11 females, while the TO-TLIF group included 29 males and 18 females. Follow-up points were set at 7 days, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months postoperatively and the last follow-up. Various clinical and radiological indicators were used to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety between the two procedures. 8 cases (3 in the MIS-TLIF group and 5 in the TO-TLIF group) were loss of follow-up after discharge. And the remaining 73 patients were followed up for at least 2 years. No statistically significant difference was observed in the terms of age, sex, BMI, slippage grade, and surgical segments. The MIS-TLIF group had a longer operation and fluoroscopy time compared with the TO-TLIF group. But the MIS-TLIF group was associated with less blood loss, ambulation time, hospital stay, and time of return to work. In each group, significant improvement were observed in BP-VAS, ODI and vertebral slip ratio at any time-point of follow-up when compared with the preoperative condition. When the time-point of follow-up was less than 1 year, the MIS-TLIF group had significant advantages in the BP-VAS and ODI compared with TO-TLIF group. But no significant difference was observed in the BP-VAS and ODI at either 12 month follow-up or the last follow-up. Besides, no statistical difference was detected in vertebral slip ratio at any time-point of follow-up between the two groups. Successful intervertebral bone fusion was found in all patients and no significant difference was found in the incidence of total complications. Thus, we considered that MIS-TLIF and TO-TLIF both achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy in the treatment of low-grade single-segment LDS. But MIS-TLIF appears to be a more efficacious and safe technique with reduced tissue damage, less blood loss and quicker recovery.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 through a Unilateral Approach: Technical Feasibility and Outcomes

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won-Suh Choi ◽  
Jin-Sung Kim ◽  
Kyeong-Sik Ryu ◽  
Jung-Woo Hur ◽  
Ji-Hoon Seong
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cage Subsidence

Background. Minimally invasive spinal transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) at L5-S1 is technically more demanding than it is at other levels because of the anatomical and biomechanical traits.Objective. To determine the clinical and radiological outcomes of MIS-TLIF for treatment of single-level spinal stenosis low-grade isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis at L5-S1.Methods. Radiological data and electronic medical records of patients who underwent MIS-TLIF between May 2012 and December 2014 were reviewed. Fusion rate, cage position, disc height (DH), disc angle (DA), disc slope angle, segmental lordotic angle (SLA), lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), and pelvic parameters were assessed. For functional assessment, the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and patient satisfaction rate (PSR) were utilized.Results. A total of 21 levels in 21 patients were studied. DH, DA, SLA, and LLA had increased from their preoperative measures at the final follow-up. Fusion rate was 86.7% (18/21) at 12 months’ follow-up. The most common cage position was anteromedial (15/21). The mean VAS scores for back and leg pain mean ODI scores improved significantly at the final follow-up. PSR was 88%. Cage subsidence was observed in 33.3% (7/21).Conclusions. The clinical and radiologic outcomes after MIS-TLIF at L5-S1 in patients with spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis are generally favorable.

Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 496-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Hao Tang ◽  
Zhonghai Li
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Peek Cage ◽  
Han Nationality

Object The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure was developed to provide the surgeon with a fusion procedure that may reduce many of the risks and limitations associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion, yet produce similar stability in the spine. There are few large series with long-term follow-up data regarding instrumented TLIF and placement of 1 diagonal polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. The authors performed a prospective study to evaluate the outcome and safety of instrumented TLIF with 1 diagonal PEEK cage for degenerative spondylolisthesis in the Han nationality in China. Methods Between May 2001 and April 2006, 60 patients (35 men and 25 women; mean age 55.5 years, range 45–70 years) with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent the TLIF procedure with 1 diagonal PEEK cage and additional pedicle screw internal fixation at the authors' institution. The inclusion criteria involved degenerative spondylolisthesis (Grades I and II) in patients with chronic low-back pain with or without leg pain. Results One patient had a postoperative temporary motor and sensory deficit of the adjacent nerve root. Reoperation was required in 1 patient because of pedicle screw migration. One patient developed a pseudarthrosis and had increasing complaints of low-back pain 1 year postoperatively and underwent a subsequent revision surgery. Two patients had nerve root symptomatic compression resulting from cage migration and insufficient decompression after surgery, and they underwent revision. Two patients had a dural tear that required fibrin glue application during surgery. No implant fracture or subsidence occurred in any patient. Clinically, the pain index and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improved significantly from before surgery to the 2-year follow-up. In the TLIF group, the pain index improved from 69 to 25 (p < 0.001). The postoperative ODI showed a significant postoperative reduction of disability during the whole period of follow-up (p < 0.001). The preoperative mean ODI score was 32.3 (16–80), and postoperative 13.1 (0–28). Disc space height and foraminal height were restored by the surgery and maintained at the latest follow-up time. Conclusions In the authors' experience, instrumented TLIF with 1 diagonal PEEK cage can be a surgical option for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in the Han nationality in China.

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.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up

2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. E16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Kevin T. Foley
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index Score ◽  
Forward Translation ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
The Mean

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is a relatively new surgical procedure that appears to minimize iatrogenic soft tissue and muscle injury. The authors describe a technique for MI-TLIF that permits the surgeon to reduce spondylolisthesis percutaneously. The results in 40 consecutive patients who underwent MI-TLIF for symptomatic spondylolisthesis utilizing this approach are reviewed. Thirty cases involved a degenerative spondylolisthesis while the remaining 10 were isthmic. The minimum follow-up was 24 months with a mean of 35 months. The mean preoperative Oswestry Disability Index score was 55, decreasing to a mean of 16 postoperatively. The mean leg and back pain visual analog scale scores were 65 and 52, respectively, improving to means of 8 and 15. Reduction of the spondylolisthesis was achieved in all cases, with a mean decrease in forward translation of 76%. The authors conclude that MI-TLIF for symptomatic spondylolisthesis appears to be an effective surgical option with results that compare favorably to open procedures.

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.

scholarly journals Dynamic stabilization for L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with more than 2 years of follow-up

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. E3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao-Hung Kuo ◽  
Peng-Yuan Chang ◽  
Jau-Ching Wu ◽  
Hsuan-Kan Chang ◽  
Li-Yu Fay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Time Point

OBJECTIVE In the past decade, dynamic stabilization has been an emerging option of surgical treatment for lumbar spondylosis. However, the application of this dynamic construct for mild spondylolisthesis and its clinical outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the management of single-level spondylolisthesis at L4–5. METHODS This study retrospectively reviewed 91 consecutive patients with Meyerding Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4–5 who were managed with surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: DDS and MI-TLIF. The DDS group was composed of patients who underwent standard laminectomy and the DDS system. The MI-TLIF group was composed of patients who underwent MI-TLIF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at each time point of evaluation. Evaluations included radiographs and CT scans for every patient for 2 years after surgery. RESULTS A total of 86 patients with L4–5 spondylolisthesis completed the follow-up of more than 2 years and were included in the analysis (follow-up rate of 94.5%). There were 64 patients in the DDS group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group, and the overall mean follow-up was 32.7 months. Between the 2 groups, there were no differences in demographic data (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) or preoperative clinical evaluations (e.g., visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores). The mean estimated blood loss of the MI-TLIF group was lower, whereas the operation time was longer compared with the DDS group (both p < 0.001). For both groups, clinical outcomes were significantly improved at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery compared with preoperative clinical status. Moreover, there were no differences between the 2 groups in clinical outcomes at each evaluation time point. Radiological evaluations were also similar and the complication rates were equally low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS At 32.7 months postoperation, the clinical and radiological outcomes of DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. DDS might be an alternative to standard arthrodesis in mild lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike fusion, dynamic implants have issues of wearing and loosening in the long term. Thus, the comparable results between the 2 groups in this study require longer follow-up to corroborate.

scholarly journals Evaluations of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed with rhBMP-2

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Lv ◽  
Yuting Hou ◽  
Xiang Jin ◽  
Dan Luo ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Cage Subsidence

Abstract Background: The combination of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) is widely used for its advantage of rapid recovery and improved bone fusion. However, no previous study has reported the synergistic effect of MIS-TLIF with rhBMP-2 in patients with degenerative lumbar disease (DLD). Objective: To investigate the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with DLD who underwent MIS-TLIF with and without a low dose of rhBMP-2. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 48 patients treated with MIS-TLIF from 2013 to 2016. The patients were classified into the rhBMP-2 group (n = 25) and non-rhBMP-2 group (n = 23). Fusion-related parameters were measured before and after the operation. Clinical data included the numeric rating scale (NRS) score, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, and the MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) score, which were documented to evaluate the effect of surgery. Results: In the 48 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF, the operated disc was predominantly at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. ADH, MDH, and PDH increased significantly in both groups after surgery (P < 0.05). FH improved in the rhBMP-2 group, but not in the non-rhBMP-2 group. There was no obvious improvement in SA in both groups. Furthermore, the SL showed a significant difference in both groups and a significant improvement over the baseline. The LL showed significant improvement in the two groups at the early follow-up (P < 0.05), but the improvement did not persist. Cage subsidence had no significant effect on different subsidence grades. In addition, no differences in cage subsidence were observed in different types of modic change (MC), except for MC 0 in both groups. There was no difference in PROs even though all clinical outcomes improved significantly during the postoperative follow-up period in both groups. Conclusion: MIS-TLIF with the low doses of rhBMP-2 resulted in an improvement in radiographic and clinical results, but not a longer-lasting restoration for radiographic outcomes. Cage subsidence is not associated with the MC. Further, our clinical data demonstrated no difference between both groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document