scholarly journals A comparative study of clinical and radiological outcome between cages and morselized bone graft in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a hospital-based study

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 492
Author(s):  
Amit Jain ◽  
Abhishek Chandra ◽  
Aakanksha Agarwal ◽  
Ramesh Chandra Meena ◽  
Mudit Agarwal
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinal Diseases ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radiological Outcome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Clinical And Radiological Outcome

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Degenerative spinal diseases resulting in neuropathic backache are managed by nerve root decompression with instrumented interbody fusion is the treatment of choice for these groups of patients when not managed conservatively.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Hospital based, comparative, retrospective study was carried out in such patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with either cage with bone graft or stand-alone autologous morselized bone graft. The clinical and radiological outcomes were compared in these two methods of interbody fusion to assess any significant difference between them. A total of 20 patients with lumbar canal stenosis and degenerative grade 1/2 spondylolisthesis who failed conservative management were operated by TLIF approach and were evaluated for post-operative improvement in Oswestry disability index (ODI) and interbody fusion on imaging at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Vertebral level of surgical intervention, intra-operative blood loss and duration of surgery were recorded for each patient along with complications, if any.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> In our study there was no significant difference in the clinical and radiological outcome between the two methods of interbody fusion. Although the group which was offered morselized bone graft with cage showed slightly better clinical outcome at 6 months of follow up, both showed no significant difference in ODI at 1 year of follow up.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> With this study, we can conclude that both the methods have similar clinical and radiological outcome with similar patient satisfaction and can be interchangeably employed for interbody fusion according to surgeon’s and patient’s preferences.</p>

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 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 A comparative study between local bone graft with or without cages in unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Jiang He ◽  
Jun-fei Feng ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Qing-song Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Local Bone ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cage Group

Abstract Objective A retrospective study of the clinical and radiological results between local bone graft with a cage and without cage in patients treated with unilateral fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Methods A total of 52 patients who underwent PLIF in our institution were evaluated from January 2015 to January 2018. 30 of these patients received PLIF with local bone graft combined with using one cage, and 22 patients received PLIF with local bone graft without using cage. The clinical data and perioperative complications of the two groups were recorded. X-ray were taken before, after operation and at the end of follow-up to calculate the height of intervertebral disc and the fusion rate. SUK's criteria were used to evaluate the quality of spinal fusion at the follow-up time. The results between the cage and non- cage group were compared. Results There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups, and The mean follow-up time was 18.43 months in cage group and 17.50 months in non- cage group (P = 0.553). In additions, the significant difference was not found in the comparison of perioperative evaluation data between the two groups, such as operation time (P = 0.299), blood loss (P = 0.342) and incidence of complications (P = 1.000). Furthermore, the significant difference of VAS score cannot be found in preoperation (Pleg=0.731, Plowback=0.786), postoperation (Pleg=0.534, Plowback=0.725) and the final follow-up (Pleg=0.654, Plowback=0.362) between the two groups. The same results were also obtained in the comparison of ODI index (Ppre=0.682, Pfinal=0.712) and intervertebral height (Ppost=0.363, Pfinal=0.094). The final fusion rates were 96.7% (cage group) and 86.4% (non- cage group) respectively, and there was no statistical difference (P = 0.553). Conclusion Local bone graft has the same advantages as a cage in unilateral PLIF. Comparing with local bone graft using cage, we believe that the local bone graft is a more ideal way in unilateral PLIF, and decrease operation cost.

Biomechanical Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With 1 or 2 Cages by Finite-Element Analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. ons198-ons205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Wen Ju ◽  
Neng Xu ◽  
Xiaojian Zhang ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element Analysis ◽  
Finite Element ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Single Cage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Extension

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with 1 cage have been shown to have similar biomechanics compared with the use of 2 cages. However, there have been no reports on the biomechanical differences between using 1 or 2 cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine the biomechanical differences between the use of 1 or 2 cages in TLIF by finite-element analysis. METHODS: Three validated finite-element models of the L3-L5 lumbar segment were created (intact model and single- and paired-cage TLIF models). To study the biomechanics, a compressive preload of 400 N over 7.5 N-m was applied to the superior surfaces of the L3 vertebral body to simulate flexion, extension, rotation, and lateral bending. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the range of motion between single-cage and paired-cage TLIF models, &lt; 1° for all loading cases. Cage stress was high in the single-cage TLIF model under all loading conditions. Bone graft stress was high in the single-cage TLIF model. Pedicle screw stress was higher in the single-cage compared with the paired-cage TLIF. CONCLUSION: Single-cage TLIF approximates biomechanical stability and increases the stress of the bone graft. The use of a single cage may simplify the standard TLIF procedure, shorten operative times, decrease cost, and provide satisfactory clinical outcomes. Thus, single-cage TLIF is a useful alternative to traditional 2-cage TLIF.

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 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.

Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. E13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader S. Dahdaleh ◽  
Alexander T. Nixon ◽  
Cort D. Lawton ◽  
Albert P. Wong ◽  
Zachary A. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lost To Follow Up

Object Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is used to treat a wide variety of lumbar degenerative disorders. Although there are some reports showing efficacy of unilateral instrumentation during MIS-TLIF, a controlled randomized prospective study has not been done. Methods Forty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive either bilateral or unilateral instrumentation following 1-level unilateral MIS-TLIF. Four patients were lost to follow-up in the unilateral group and 1 patient was lost to follow-up in the bilateral group. Preoperative and postoperative scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain (VAS-BP and VAS-LP, respectively), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 36-Item Short Form Healthy Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) were collected. Additionally, preoperative and postoperative segmental Cobb angles and radiographic evidence of fusion were analyzed. Results There was no statistically significant difference in baseline demographic characteristics between the 2 groups. The VAS-BP, VAS-LP, ODI, and SF-36v2 physical component scores improved significantly after surgery in both groups (p < 0.05); there was no statistically significant between-groups difference in the degree of improvement. Blood loss was significantly higher in the bilateral instrumentation group and hospital stay was longer in the unilateral instrumentation group. There was no statistically significant between-groups difference with respect to change in segmental lordosis or fusion rate. The average duration of follow-up was 12.4 months for the bilateral instrumentation group and 11.4 months for the unilateral instrumentation group. Conclusions Clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral and bilateral instrumentation for unilateral MISTLIF are similar 1 year after surgery.

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