Minimal Access Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ghahreman ◽  
Richard D. Ferch ◽  
Prashanth J. Rao ◽  
Nikolai Bogduk
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimal access posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MAPLIF) with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (OPLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis and radicular pain. METHODS A prospective study was performed of 47 patients with radicular pain resulting from lumbar spondylolisthesis with a slip of less than 50% who underwent either MAPLIF (n = 23) or OPLIF (n = 24). At 12 months after treatment, clinical outcomes were measured using the Short-Form Health Survey 36 and the visual analog score for both leg pain and back pain, and the degree of reduction of spondylolisthesis, restoration of disc height, and presence of fusion were assessed. RESULTS Both groups were similar in demographic and baseline clinical features. Both exhibited statistically and clinically significant improvements in back pain (OPLIF, 64%; MAPLIF, 78%), and leg pain (88% for both groups). This was corroborated by improvements in social and physical functioning, which were similar for both groups. The reduction of spondylolisthesis and fusion rates were also similar between the 2 groups. MAPLIF patients commenced mobilization sooner, achieved independent mobilization earlier, and had a shorter hospital stay (4 days versus 7 days). CONCLUSION MAPLIF and OPLIF both reduce leg and back pain and restore function to a similar extent. MAPLIF is as effective as OPLIF in reducing the slip in patients with spondylolisthesis of less than 50%. MAPLIF promotes faster recovery and shortens hospital stay.

Long-term Follow-up of Minimal-Access and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas K. Cheung ◽  
Richard D. Ferch ◽  
Ali Ghahreman ◽  
Nikolai Bogduk
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Long Term Outcome

Abstract BACKGROUND: Although posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is regarded as an effective treatment for spondylolisthesis, few studies have reported comprehensive, long-term outcome data, and none has investigated the incidence of deterioration of outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the success rates and long-term stability of outcomes of open PLIF and minimal-access PLIF in the treatment of radicular pain and back pain in patients with spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Forty-three patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years. They completed a Short-Form Health Survey and visual analog scores for back pain and leg pain and underwent lumbar spine radiography. Outcomes were compared with baseline data and 12-month data. RESULTS: Surgery succeeded in reducing listhesis and increasing disc height, but had little effect on lumbar lordosis or the angulation of the segment treated. At 12 months after surgery, listhesis was reduced, disc height was increased, leg pain was reduced or eliminated, and physical functioning restored. Back pain was less often relieved. These outcomes were largely maintained over the ensuing 2 years. Only 5% to 10% of patients reported deterioration in their relief of pain. Depending on the definition adopted for success, the long-term success rate of PLIF may be as high as 70%. CONCLUSION: For the relief of leg pain, the success rates of open PLIF (70%) and minimal-access PLIF (67%) for spondylolisthesis are high and durable in the long-term. PLIF is less often successful in relieving back pain, but the outcomes are maintained. The outcomes of open PLIF and minimal-access PLIF were statistically indistinguishable.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Decompression Alone for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Kai-Hong Chan ◽  
Erica F Bisson ◽  
Mohamad Bydon ◽  
Steven D Glassman ◽  
Kevin T Foley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract INTRODUCTION The optimal minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. This study compares patient reported outcomes (PRO) following MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 608 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis of whom 143 underwent MIS [72 MI-TLIF (50.3%) and 71 MIS decompressions (49.7%)]. Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse-plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MI-TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). In total, 24-mo follow-up parameters were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) Back Pain, NRS Leg Pain, EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire, and North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Questionnaire. Multivariate models were constructed adjusting for baseline patient and surgical factors. RESULTS The mean age of the MIS cohort was 67.1 ± 11.3 yr (MI-TLIF 62.1 yr vs MIS decompression 72.3 yr) and consisted of 79 (55.2%) women (MI-TLIF 55.6% vs MIS decompression 54.9%). The proportions reaching 24-mo follow-up were similar (MI-TLIF 83.3% and MIS decompression 84.5%; P = .85). MI-TLIF was associated with higher blood loss (108.8 vs 33.0 mL, P < .001), longer operative times (228.2 vs 101.8 min, P < .001) and length of hospitalization (2.9 vs 0.7 d, P < .001). MI-TLIF was associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate (14.1% vs 1.4%, P = .004). Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, and EQ-5D at 24 mo (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with superior ODI change (ß = −7.59; 95% CI [−14.96 to −0.23]; P = .04), NRS back pain change (ß = −1.54; 95% CI [−2.78 to −0.30]; P = .02), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 0.32; 95% CI [0.12-0.82]; P = .02). CONCLUSION For symptomatic, single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with a 10-fold lower reoperation rate and superior outcomes for disability, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared to MIS decompression alone.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 617-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michiel B. Lequin ◽  
Dagmar Verbaan ◽  
Gerrit J. Bouma
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Good Recovery ◽  
Trabecular Metal ◽  
The Mean

Object Patients with recurrent sciatica due to repeated reherniation of the intervertebral disc carry a poor prognosis for recovery and create a large burden on society. There is no consensus about the best treatment for this patient group. The goal of this study was to evaluate the 12-month results of the placement of stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages in these patients. Methods The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients with recurrent disc herniations treated with stand-alone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with Trabecular Metal cages. At 1 year patients were evaluated using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Furthermore, Likert scores of perceived recovery and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded. Lumbar spine radiographs after 1 year were compared with postoperative radiographs to measure subsidence. Stability of the operated segment was assessed using dynamic radiography. Results The patient group consisted of 26 patients (62% male) with a mean age of 45.7 ± 11.4 years (± SD). Patients had a history of 1 (31%), 2 (42%), or more (27%) discectomies at the same level. The mean follow-up period was 15.3 ± 7.3 months. At follow-up the mean VAS score for pain in the affected leg was 36.7 ± 27.9. The mean VAS score for back pain was 42.5 ± 30.2. The mean RMDQ score at follow-up was 9.8 ± 6.2. Twelve (46%) of the 26 patients had a global perceived good recovery. With respect to treatment satisfaction, 18 patients (69%) were content or very content with the operation and would recommend it. Disc height was increased immediately postoperatively, and at the 1-year follow-up it was still significantly higher compared with the preoperative height (mean 41% ± 38.7%, range −25.7 to 126.8, paired t-test, both p < 0.001), although a mean of 7.52% ± 11.6% subsidence occurred (median 2.0% [interquartile range 0.0%–10.9%], p < 0.003). No significant correlation between subsidence and postoperative back pain was found (Spearman's rho −0.2, p = 0.459). Flexion-extension radiographs showed instability in 1 patient. Conclusions Although only 46% of patients reported a good recovery with significant reductions in back and leg pain, 85% of patients reported at least some benefit from the operation, and a marked improvement in working status at follow-up was noted. In view of previously published poor results of instrumented lumbar fusion for patients with failed back surgery syndrome, the present data indicate that Trabecular Metal interbody fusion cages can be used in a stand-alone fashion and should not always need supplemental posterior fixation in patients with recurrent disc herniation without spinal instability, although a long-term follow-up study is warranted.

scholarly journals The Memory Metal Minimal Access Cage: A New Concept in Lumbar Interbody Fusion—A Prospective, Noncomparative Study to Evaluate the Safety and Performance

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Kok ◽  
R. D. Donk ◽  
F. H. Wapstra ◽  
A. G. Veldhuizen
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  
Contact Area ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Solid Fusion

Study Design/Objective. A single-centre, prospective, non-comparative study of 25 patients to evaluate the performance and safety of the Memory Metal Minimal Access Cage (MAC) in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Summary of Background Data. Interbody fusion cages in general are designed to withstand high axial loads and in the meantime to allow ingrowth of new bone for bony fusion. In many cages the contact area with the endplate is rather large leaving a relatively small contact area for the bone graft with the adjacent host bone. MAC is constructed from the memory metal Nitinol and builds on the concept of sufficient axial support in combination with a large contact area of the graft facilitating bony ingrowth and ease in minimal access implantation due to its high deformability.Methods. Twenty five subjects with a primary diagnosis of disabling back and radicular leg pain from a single level degenerative lumbar disc underwent an interbody fusion using MAC and pedicle screws. Clinical performance was evaluated prospectively over 2 years using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. The interbody fusion status was assessed using conventional radiographs and CT scan. Safety of the device was studied by registration of intra- and post-operative adverse effects.Results. Clinical performance improved significantly (P<.0018), CT scan confirmed solid fusion in all 25 patients at two year follow-up. In two patients migration of the cage occurred, which was resolved uneventfully by placing a larger size at the subsequent revision.Conclusions. We conclude that the Memory Metal Minimal Access Cage (MAC) resulted in 100% solid fusions in 2 years and proved to be safe, although two patients required revision surgery in order to achieve solid fusion.

scholarly journals A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. E13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew K. Chan ◽  
Erica F. Bisson ◽  
Mohamad Bydon ◽  
Steven D. Glassman ◽  
Kevin T. Foley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVEThe optimal minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approach for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. In this study, the authors compared the 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSA total of 608 patients from 12 high-enrolling sites participating in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis, of whom 143 underwent MIS (72 MIS TLIF [50.3%] and 71 MIS decompression [49.7%]). Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MIS TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). Parameters obtained at baseline through at least 24 months of follow-up were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain, NRS for leg pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Multivariate models were constructed to adjust for patient characteristics, surgical variables, and baseline PRO values.RESULTSThe mean age of the MIS cohort was 67.1 ± 11.3 years (MIS TLIF 62.1 years vs MIS decompression 72.3 years) and consisted of 79 (55.2%) women (MIS TLIF 55.6% vs MIS decompression 54.9%). The proportion in each cohort reaching the 24-month follow-up did not differ significantly between the cohorts (MIS TLIF 83.3% and MIS decompression 84.5%, p = 0.85). MIS TLIF was associated with greater blood loss (mean 108.8 vs 33.0 ml, p < 0.001), longer operative time (mean 228.2 vs 101.8 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer length of hospitalization (mean 2.9 vs 0.7 days, p < 0.001). MIS TLIF was associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate (14.1% vs 1.4%, p = 0.004). Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, and EQ-5D at 24 months (p < 0.001, all comparisons relative to baseline). In multivariate analyses, MIS TLIF—as opposed to MIS decompression alone—was associated with superior ODI change (β = −7.59, 95% CI −14.96 to −0.23; p = 0.04), NRS back pain change (β = −1.54, 95% CI −2.78 to −0.30; p = 0.02), and NASS satisfaction (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12–0.82; p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONSFor symptomatic, single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS TLIF was associated with a lower reoperation rate and superior outcomes for disability, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with posterior MIS decompression alone. This finding may aid surgical decision-making when considering MIS for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

scholarly journals Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Technical Note and Surgical Comparison with Conventional MIS TLIF.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asrafi Rizki Gatam ◽  
Omar Luthfi ◽  
Harmantya Mahadhipta ◽  
Luthfi Gatam ◽  
Ajiantoro Ajiantoro
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract Backgrounds : Minimally invasive surgery develops very extensively in past few decades, not only in the scope of decompression but until fusion surgery. Surgeon has been trying to reduce the damage to the normal anatomical structure. In this study we performed unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) as one of the fusion option which is readily available without sophisticated minimal invasive instrument. The purpose of this study is to introduce unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery and comparing the result with conventional minimal invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) Methods : This is a retrospective cohort study of 145 lumbar spondylolisthesis patient underwent conventional MIS-TLIF or ULIF procedure. All patient were followed up until 12 months to evaluate the VAS of back pain and leg pain, ODI, SF-36 and fusion rate. Results : Back pain VAS were a little higher compared with the endoscopic group, but the VAS of leg pain were the same. Both group had improvement in ODI score and SF-36 which shows both of the procedure were quite effective in managing such cases. Conclusion : Full endoscopic fusion offer benefit of minimal invasive surgery with better visualization of decompression and endplate preparation. Long term follow up is still needed to evaluate the result of the procedure.

scholarly journals Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Introduction The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Methods Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Results Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. Conclusions This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. Trial registration Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document