scholarly journals Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative spondylosis and disc disease in a tertiary care hospital in Pimpri

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 730
Author(s):  
Harsh Sanjay Kumar ◽  
Ajit Swamy
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Significant Difference

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Spinal fusion in the form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are the two common surgical modalities for degenerative spondylosis and disc disease. The objective of the study to compare blood loss, surgical timing, post-operative medical and surgical complications in patients treated by either modality.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This was to compare prospective study of 30 patients equally divided between two modalities operated for TLIF or PLIF after conservative treatment failure.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> There is a statistically significant difference between the blood loss, surgical time and improvement in ODI score in two groups while percentage of post-surgical complications are higher in PLIF group compared to TLIF.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> TLIF is associated with less post-operative surgical complications than TLIF which can be attributed to unilateral exposure of intervertebral disc space and requires lesser operative time and produces less blood loss.</p>

scholarly journals Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Llumbar Degenerative Diseases, which one is better: A meta-analysis Through a Ggrade Analysis of Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
aixian tian ◽  
xinlong ma ◽  
jianxiong Ma
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract BackgroundTo explore the efficacy and safety between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.MethodsWe searched the literature in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The index words were posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF, lumbar interbody fusion, spinal fusion, degenerative disc disease and lumbar degenerative diseases. Primary outcomes were fusion rate and complications. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (ΔVAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ΔODI), total blood loss, operation time and length of hospital stay. Review Manager 5.3 and Stata13.1 was used for the analysis of forest plots, heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias.Results17 studies were included (N=1562; PLIF, n=835; TLIF, n=727). The pooled data showed PLIF had a higher complications (P= 0.000), especially in nerve injury (p = 0.003) and dural tear (p = 0.005). PLIF required longer operation time (p = 0.004), more blood loss (p = 0.000) and hospital stays (p = 0.006). Surprisingly subgroup analysis showed there was significant difference in complications in patients under 55 (p = 0.000) and Asian countries (p = 0.000). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to fusion rate (p = 0.593),ΔVAS (p = 0.364) andΔODI (p = 0.237).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed there were no significant difference in fusion rate, ΔVAS and ΔODI. However TLIF could reduce complications, especially nerve injury and dural tear. Besides, TLIF was associated with statistically significant less blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter length of hospital stay.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoxin Fan ◽  
Xinbo Wu ◽  
Shunzhi Yu ◽  
Qi Sun ◽  
Xiaofei Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

The aim of this study was to directly compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in three-level lumbar spinal stenosis. This retrospective study involved a total of 60 patients with three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent MIS-TLIF or PLIF from January 2010 to February 2012. Back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scale were used to assess the pain, disability, and health status before surgery and postoperatively. In addition, the operating time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded. There were no significant differences in back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, SF-36, fusion condition, and complications at 12-month follow-up between the two groups (P>0.05). However, significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay were observed in MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). Moreover, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS than those in PLIF group at 6-month follow-up (P<0.05). Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF might be a prior option because of noninferior efficacy as well as merits of less blood loss and quicker recovery in treating three-level lumbar spinal stenosis.

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: A Review of the Technique, Indications and Graft Materials

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 908-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y-X Xiao ◽  
Q-X Chen ◽  
F-C Li
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Fusion Procedure ◽  
Local Bone ◽  
Circumferential Fusion

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an alternative interbody fusion procedure in which interbody space is accessed via a path that runs through the far lateral portion of the vertebral foramen. TLIF reduces the potential complications of other approaches, including the transabdominal approach or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), but still achieves clinical outcomes and circumferential fusion results comparable with PLIF. Operative indications for TLIF are contested among many spine experts. The optimal indications for using this technique are spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease with a specific discogenic pain pattern, lumbar stenosis with instability and recurrent lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Various instrumentation techniques and graft materials are available to use in TLIF, and each option has benefits and disadvantages. Further research is needed, however, TLIF with one cage and excised local bone and augmented with a bilateral pedicle screw seems to be an effective and affordable treatment.

scholarly journals Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Fusion Outcomes in Patients with Minimal Deformities: A Retrospective Study of Data Collected Between 2011 and 2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (22;1) ◽  
pp. 75-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solomon Kamson
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinical Series ◽  
Global Sagittal Alignment

Background: Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the gold standard treatment for back pain due to degenerative disc disease and lumbar instability. Traditional open TLIF has been associated with extensive tissue dissection, excessive blood loss, and slow recovery time. Full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (FE-TLIF) is an evolving treatment. Objectives: This study aims to review outcomes of FE-TLIF performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) on patients with advanced disc disease with minimal spinal deformity. Study Design: This study employed a retrospective cohort design. Methods: This Western Institutional Review Board-approved study (#1-925640-1) assessed blood loss, operative time (OR time), post anesthesia care unit time (PACU time), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of 85 patients who underwent FE-TLIF between 2011 and 2015 and were followed up for 12 months. Relationships between risk factors (demographics, clinical presentation) and outcomes were analyzed. Results: No intraoperative complications were observed. There were 2 cases of postoperative sympathetically mediated pain and 3 reoperations. The number of decompression/fusion levels was crucial to OR time but had a smaller impact on PACU time. OR time for patients with 2-level fusion was 110 minutes longer than for those with one level operation. BMI and age had no significant effect on OR time. BMI had a modest effect on PACU time. Gender and age did not affect PACU time. A significant decrease in VAS was observed. Limitations: This study has several limitations, including the lack of a control group and reliance on patient-reported outcomes (VAS). In addition, fusion rate and global sagittal alignment were not measured. Although not statistically significant, the use of facet screws, unilateral, or bilateral pedicle screws presented variation in techniques within the group. Early recovery also diminished the incentive for long-term follow-up. Conclusion: FE-TLIF is a feasible technique for lumbar stabilization surgery in an ASC in select patients. This level-II study demonstrates safety in a variety of clinical presentations, including obesity, extremes of age, and anatomical access challenge. Larger clinical series are necessary to validate this technique, particularly for the treatment of patients with advanced spinal deformities. Key words: Full-endoscopic, minimally invasive spine surgery, postoperative complications, TLIF, lumbar fusion, low back pain

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 Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 487-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert P. Wong ◽  
Zachary A. Smith ◽  
Alexander T. Nixon ◽  
Cort D. Lawton ◽  
Nader S. Dahdaleh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complication Rate ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Perioperative Complication

OBJECT Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become one of the preferred procedures for circumferential fusion in the lumbar spine. Over the last decade, advances in surgical techniques have enabled surgeons to perform the TLIF procedure through a minimally invasive approach (MI-TLIF). There are a few studies reported in the medical literature in which perioperative complication rates of MI-TLIF were evaluated; here, the authors present the largest cohort series to date. They analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications in 513 consecutive MI-TLIF–treated patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease. METHODS The authors performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 513 consecutive patients treated over a 10-year period for lumbar degenerative disc disease using MI-TLIF. All patients undergoing either a first-time or revision 1- or 2-level MI-TLIF procedure were included in the study. Demographic, intraoperative, and perioperative data were collected and analyzed using bivariate analyses (Student t-test, analysis of variance, odds ratio, chi-square test) and multivariate analyses (logistic regression). RESULTS A total of 513 patients underwent an MI-TLIF procedure, and the perioperative complication rate was 15.6%. The incidence of durotomy was 5.1%, and the medical and surgical infection rates were 1.4% and 0.2%, respectively. A statistically significant increase in the infection rate was seen in revision MI-TLIF cases, and the same was found for the perioperative complication rate in multilevel MI-TLIF cases. Instrumentation failure occurred in 2.3% of the cases. After analysis, no statistically significant difference was seen in the rates of durotomy during revision and multilevel surgeries. There was no significant difference between the complication rates when stratified according to presenting diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest study of perioperative complications in MI-TLIF in the literature. A total of 513 patients underwent MI-TLIF (perioperative complication rate 15.6%). The most common complication was a durotomy (5.1%), and there was only 1 surgical wound infection (0.2%). There were significantly more perioperative infections in revision MI-TLIF cases and more perioperative complications in multilevel MI-TLIF cases. The results of this study suggest that MI-TLIF has a similar or better perioperative complication profile than those documented in the literature for open-TLIF treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral instrumented fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178
Author(s):  
Sanjay Yadav ◽  
Saurabh Singh ◽  
Raj Kumar Arya ◽  
Alok Kumar ◽  
Ishan Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spine ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spine Disorders

Objectives: Spinal fusion is an effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spine; however, conflicting results exist regarding the best procedure. This study compares the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in patients of degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Methods: Of the total 37 patients, 16 patients were operated with TLIF and 21 were operated with instrumented PLF with bone grafting. Duration of the study was from June 2017 to June 2019. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Inclusion criteria were (1) age of patient ranging from 18 years to 70 years, (2) involvement of single level, (3) diagnosis of degenerative spine disease, and (4) minimum follow-up of 1 year. Radiographic parameters such as slippage of vertebrae, anterior and posterior disc heights, local disc lordosis, T12–S1 angle were measured, and fusion were assessed; comparison between preoperative and postoperative parameters was also done. Clinical outcome score was obtained using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. Results: No significant difference was found in ODI and VAS between TLIF and PLF. Restoration of disc height and improvement of local disc lordosis was better in the TLIF group than in the PLF group. The fusion rate was 87.5% in the TLIF group and 81% in the instrumented PLF group. Amount of blood loss was slightly higher in the TLIF group (319.69 ± 53.8 mL) than in the instrumented PLF group (261.19 ± 34.9 mL). Operating time was also slightly higher in TLIF (133 ± 6.02 min) than in instrumented PLF (90.71 ± 6.3 min). Conclusion: TLIF is superior to instrumented PLF in terms of restoration of anterior and posterior disc heights and improvement in local disc lordosis and higher fusion rate, however it requires greater surgical expertise and more experience. Because of anterior cage support, early weight-bearing mobilization can be allowed in the TLIF group compared to the PLF group. Surgical time and blood loss were slightly higher in cases of TLIF than instrumented PLF.

scholarly journals A novel minimally invasive presacral approach and instrumentation technique for anterior L5–S1 intervertebral discectomy and fusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Marotta ◽  
Murat Cosar ◽  
Luiz Pimenta ◽  
Larry T. Khoo
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Lower Lumbar

Object The authors describe a new paracoccygeal approach to the L5–S1 junction for interbody fusion with transsacral instrumentation. The purpose of this technical note is to demonstrate a novel surgical approach, technique, and instrumentation system for the treatment of L5–S1 instability in degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis. Methods This technical note highlights the AxiaLif (TranS1) transsacral system as an alternative method to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Via a novel presacral approach corridor, a truly percutaneous L5–S1 discectomy, interbody distraction, and fixation are achieved, and retroperitoneal viscera and dorsal neural elements are avoided. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is then used to provide additional stabilization at the treated level. Conclusions This novel technique of interbody distraction and fusion via a truly percutaneous approach corridor allows for circumferential treatment of the lower lumbar segments with minimal risk to the anterior organs and dorsal neural elements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document