scholarly journals Low-grade spondylolisthesis: is transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion superior to posterolateral fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 597
Author(s):  
Hiranya Kumar Seenappa ◽  
Karthik Narayanamurthy Mittemari ◽  
Vamshikrishna Chand Nimmagadda
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Caudal Segment

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Spondylolisthesis is anterior translation of the cephalad vertebra relative to the adjacent caudal segment. Both posterolateral fusion (PLF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and have shown high fusion rates with good clinical outcomes. But it is not clear which treatment leads to better outcomes, as limited studies have been done to compare PLF and TLIF in low grade spondylolisthesis. Our objective is to determine whether PLF or TLIF was associated with better clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with low grade spondylolisthesis.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Fourty patients were enrolled and assigned into PLF (n=20) or TLIF (n=20) group. The outcome measures were: clinical outcomes as assessed with a visual analogue scale and the modified Oswestry disability index, the fusion rate based on radiographs.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> The improvement of visual analog score (VAS) of low back pain was greater in TLIF than in PLF (89.6% versus 88.7%, p=0.79). The improvement of VAS of leg pain was greater in TLIF than in PLF (96.5% versus 94.8%; p=0.27). The improvement of Oswestry disability index (ODI) was greater in TLIF than in PLF (71.7% vs 69.8%, p=0.32). The fusion rate was 85% in TLIF and 75% in PLF (p=0.43).  Overall outcome was excellent in 80% in TLIF compared to 65% in PLF (p=0.29).</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Fusion rates are higher in TLIF and average functional outcomes (VAS and ODI) were better in TLIF compared to PLF.  Larger and longer studies may provide a significant outcome. Based on our results and literature review, we conclude that TLIF is superior to PLF.</p>

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 441-452
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Disease

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) has been increasingly used to treat degenerative lumbar disease in recent years. However, there are still controversies about whether PE-TLIF is superior to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes and complications of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating degenerative lumbar disease. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of online databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify related studies reporting the outcomes and complications of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. The clinical outcomes were assessed by the Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. In addition, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and surgery-related complications were summarized. Forest plots were constructed to investigate the results. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies involving 1,475 patients were included in this meta-analysis. PE-TLIF significantly reduced operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, and length of hospital stay compared to MIS-TLIF. Moreover, PE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in the early postoperative relief of back pain. However, there were no significant differences in medium to long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate, and incidence of complications between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF. LIMITATIONS: The current evidence is heterogeneous and most studies included in this meta-analysis are nonrandomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis indicates that medium to long-term clinical outcomes and complication rates of PE-TLIF were similar to MIS-TLIF for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. However, PE-TLIF shows advantages in less surgical trauma, faster recovery, and early postoperative relief of back pain. KEY WORDS: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, degenerative lumbar disease, chronic pain, systematic review, meta-analysis

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.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Intraoperative Fluoroscopy for Disc Space Preparation: Analysis of Fusion Rate and Clinical Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 557-566
Author(s):  
Guang-Xun Lin ◽  
Sagar Sharma ◽  
Gang Rui ◽  
Myung-Soo Song ◽  
Jin-Sung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lateral View ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Intraoperative Fluoroscopy ◽  
Cage Subsidence

Abstract BACKGROUND Meticulous disc space preparation is an important step toward ensuring arthrodesis in the interbody fusion procedure. Although minimally invasive techniques are becoming increasingly advanced in lumbar interbody fusion, concerns exist regarding adequate discectomy and sufficient endplate preparation from a transforaminal lumbar approach. OBJECTIVE To describe the radiographic and clinical outcomes of single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using the intraoperative fluoroscopy-guided method for disc space preparation. METHODS This is a retrospective study of 25 patients operated between June 2016 and Dec 2017. The radiographic outcomes included the intraoperative percentage of disc space preparation, fusion, and subsidence. Percentage of disc space preparation was calculated through intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging. Clinical outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and satisfaction rate. RESULTS Mean age of patients was 62.9 yr. The mean follow-up period was 22 mo. Mean extents of disc space preparation were 61.5% in the anteroposterior view and 80.3% in the lateral view. Fusion rates were 86% and 92% at 6 and 12-mo postoperatively, respectively. All patients showed clinical improvement according to VAS and ODI. CONCLUSION MI-TLIF with intraoperative fluoroscopy-guided disc space preparation is shown to lead to potentially improved fusion rate. It is a safe and effective surgical method for degenerative lumbar disease. Additionally, in cases of cage subsidence caused by the endplate violation during disc space preparation, thorough sufficient bone grafting of the defect region avoids pseudoarthrosis.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Screw Placement and Fusion Rate after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with O-arm Navigation: A Review of 475 Patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verapan Kuansongtham ◽  
Kanthika Wasinpongwanich ◽  
Khin Myat Myat Lwin ◽  
Withawin Kesornsak ◽  
Krit Pongpirul
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Retrospective Data Analysis

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of screw placement and fusion rate after the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) technique under O-arm navigation. Methods In 475 consecutive patients at a single-center, the accuracy of screw placement was evaluated on intraoperative O-arm imaging. Misplaced screws were investigated to identify the direction of deviation and associated clinical outcomes. The fusion rate was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography scan at 1 and 2 year(s). The assessment of screw placement and fusion level was analyzed for inter-rater reliability and reported as a kappa value. Accuracy of screw placement (Gertzbein-Robbins Classification), extent of fusion (Bridwell Interbody Fusion Grading System), and complications were considered as outcome measures. Results A retrospective data analysis from 2,098 pedicle screws in 475 patients. The mean age of participants was 56.61 ± 12.30 years, and 45.26% were female. Their ethnicities were as follows: Asian (58.74%), Caucasian (20.21%), Middle-eastern (14.32%), and African (6.74%). The final fusion levels were single (80.63%), two (18.11%), three (1.05%), and four (0.21%). There were L4/L5 as the most prevalent placement (55.35%), followed by L5/S1 (36.29%), L3/L4 (5.22%), L2/L3 (2.35%), L1/L2 (0.52%), and S1/S2 (0.26%). Seven out of 2,098 screws were breaches. None of screw needed immediate revision. In total, 99.66% of the screws were grade A (no breach), 0.19% were grade B (breach < 2 mm) and 0.14% were grade C (breach < 4mm). Conclusion The accuracy of pedicle screw insertion was 99.66%, with a fusion rate of 95.45% after MIS-TLIF under O-arm navigation. Breaches were not associated with poor clinical outcomes or fusion rates.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in the treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis: midterm clinical outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 488-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Murat Müslüman ◽  
Adem Yılmaz ◽  
Tufan Cansever ◽  
Halit Çavuşoğlu ◽  
İbrahim Çolak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transpedicular Instrumentation ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Object The purpose of this study was to compare the methods of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) in cases of isthmic Grades 1 and 2 lumbar spondylolisthesis, and to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the procedures. Methods Operations were performed in 50 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis in the authors' clinics between 2001 and 2007. Indications for surgery were low-back pain with or without sciatica and neurogenic claudication that had not improved after at least 6 months of conservative treatment. The study included 33 female and 17 male patients, with mean ages of 50.6 years in the PLIF group and 47.3 years in the PLF group. These patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: decompression, posterior transpedicular instrumentation, and PLF (Group 1; 25 patients) and decompression, posterior transpedicular instrumentation, and PLIF (Group 2; 25 patients). In the PLIF group, titanium cages were used, and autograft material was obtained from the decompression. In the PLF group, bone fragments collected from the iliac crest were used as autografts. A minimum 18-month follow-up was available in all patients. For clinical evaluation, a visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey were used. Improvements in pre- and postoperative spondylolisthesis, segmental angles, fusion ratios, and postoperative complications were evaluated radiologically. Results The average follow-up period was 3.3 years. Based on the etiologies, isthmic spondylolisthesis was detected in all patients. The spondylolisthesis levels in the patients who underwent PLIF were located at L3–4 (5 patients, 20%); L4–5 (14, 56%); and L5–S1 (6, 24%), whereas the levels in the ones treated with PLF were located at L3–4 (4 patients, 16%); L4–5 (13, 52%); and L5–S1 (8, 32%). In the clinical evaluations, good or excellent results were obtained in 22 (88%) cases in the PLIF group and 19 (76%) cases in the PLF group. Fusion ratios were 100% in the PLIF group and 84% in the PLF group. Both lumbar lordosis and the segmental angle showed greater improvement in the PLIF group. There was no difference in the complication rates for each group. Conclusions Based on early clinical outcomes and the fusion ratios of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis, the authors found PLIF to be superior to PLF.

scholarly journals Endoscopic Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion In 1-Segment Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Prospective Randomised Pilot Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
You Lv ◽  
Ming Chen ◽  
Ru-Jie Qin ◽  
Cheng Ma ◽  
Qi-Rui Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Multifidus Muscle ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract Background: There are currently several minimally invasive techniques for lumbar spine interbody fusion that have been shown to minimize surgical and perioperative morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the curative efficacy of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) by comparing perioperative characteristics and 1.5-year observational outcomes in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis between the minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) technique and the optimized Endo-TLIF technique. Methods: One hundred and two patients treated by MIS-TLIF (48 cases) or Endo-TLIF (54 cases) were included from March 2018 to April 2019. Perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Inflammatory biomarkers were measured for postoperative traumatic stress and muscle injury. Fusion rates were determined at 18 months after surgery by CT.Results: The Endo-TLIF group had similar incision length, return to work time and rate (p>0.05). Blood loss, left bed time and analgesic ratio were significantly less in Endo-TLIF group (p<0.05). The Endo-TLIF group had a significantly longer operative and radiation exposure time compared with MIS-TLIF group (p<0.05). The CRP and ESR levels were lower in the Endo-TLIF group compared with the MIS-TLIF group (p<0.05). The VAS and ODI improved significantly in both groups after surgery. Significant decreases in low back VAS in the Endo-TLIF group were found at postoperative day 1 and 3 months after surgery (p<0.05). The fusion rate in the Endo-TLIF group (90.7%) was similar to that in the MIS-TLIF group (95.8%).Conclusions: Endo-TLIF has comparable perioperative analysis and clinical outcomes in comparison to MIS-TLIF and manifests a greater improvement in less multifidus muscle damage, inflammation and faster patient recovery. Thus, Endo-TLIF should be considered as a feasible and effective technique for 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis patients with similar fusion rate.Trial registration: ChiCTR1800015197, 13 March 2018. Trial registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Registered 13 March 2018. http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=25865

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document