scholarly journals Quantitative comparison of clinical outcomes and decompression parameters between extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating lumbar spinal stenosis: a 3-year retrospective cohort study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junchao Xing ◽  
Peng Cheng ◽  
Jianzhong Xu ◽  
Hongwei Lu ◽  
Qingyi He
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background This retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy and decompression parameters of extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods From January 2012 to June 2016, 1455 patients with LSS who underwent surgery were reviewed and 83 cases were included (40 cases for XLIF and 43 cases for TLIF). The operative time, blood loss, accumulated fluoroscopy time, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), fusion rate and complications were evaluated. Moreover, decompression parameters were compared, including the sagittal disc height (DH), the foraminal height (FH) and area (FA), the lumbar lordosis (LL), the transverse area of the dural sac (DS), as well as the rate of change loss of these parameters. Results The baseline was consistent between two groups. The mean follow-up time was 36.9 months. Both of XLIF and TLIF yielded clinical improvements. XLIF had advantages over TLIF in blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and complication. The fusion rate, postoperative VAS and ODI scores were comparable. Particularly, XLIF showed analogous, or even better, capacity of ameliorating decompression parameters to TLIF, especially regarding DH, LL and the maintenance of decompression. Conclusions Compared with TLIF, XLIF is advantageous to avoid blood loss, shorten the operative time, hospital stay and maintain the decompressive effect in treating LSS.

scholarly journals Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Patients of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Treated with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion - A Retrospective Cohort Study, New Delhi

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (21) ◽  
pp. 1647-1652
Author(s):  
Abhishek Komalsing Jaroli ◽  
Gajanand Dhaked ◽  
Harish Narayansingh Rajpurohit
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Isthmic Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Circumferential Fusion

BACKGROUND Operative treatment and fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis can be achieved by various fusion techniques such as posterolateral fusion (PLF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and circumferential fusion. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome and radiological correction achieved after TLIF and assess the correlation between them if any. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study analysing 30 cases of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis who failed conservative treatment and were then treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between 2011 and 2013. The clinical follow-up was done with the modified Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual pain analogue score (VPAS). For the radiological follow-up radiographs were taken and several radiographic parameters were noted and analysed. RESULTS The mean of the Oswestry disability index scores in all patients decreased from 67.73 to 13.1 at final follow up. Similarly, visual pain analogue score reduced from mean 8.43 to 1.76 at final follow up. The average anterolisthesis was significantly reduced from the preoperative 27.1 ± 14 % to 7.1 ± 5 % at final follow-up radiographs (P < 0.001). Segmental lordosis increased from a mean of 11.5 degrees to 15.7 degrees. The difference in slip angle was significant from preoperative -4.87 ± 4.8 degrees and - 7.23 ± 4.63 degrees on the initial postoperative and - 7.2 ± 4.57 degrees at final follow-up radiographs (P = 0.14 and 0.13 respectively). CONCLUSIONS Thus, adult isthmic spondylolisthesis can be safely and effectively treated by TLIF with significant clinical relief and decrease in disability. TLIF procedure in isthmic spondylolisthesis is capable of reducing the sagittal translation and restoring disc height. Also, sagittal alignment and lordosis can be restored to a large extent. KEYWORDS Spondylolisthesis, Pelvic Incidence, Sagittal Balance, TLIF

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.

scholarly journals Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 847-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nickalus R. Khan ◽  
Aaron J. Clark ◽  
Siang Liao Lee ◽  
Garrett T. Venable ◽  
Nicholas B. Rossi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)—or MI-TLIF—has been increasing in prevalence compared with open TLIF (O-TLIF) procedures. The use of MI-TLIF is an evolving technique with conflicting reports in the literature about outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of MI-TLIF in comparison with O-TLIF for early and late outcomes by using the Visual Analog Scale for back pain (VAS-back) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary end points include blood loss, operative time, radiation exposure, length of stay, fusion rates, and complications between the 2 procedures. METHODS: During August 2014, a systematic literature search was performed identifying 987 articles. Of these, 30 met inclusion criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by using both pooled and subset analyses based on study type. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that MI-TLIF reduced blood loss (P &lt; .001), length of stay (P &lt; .001), and complications (P = .001) but increased radiation exposure (P &lt; .001). No differences were found in fusion rate (P = .61) and operative time (P = .34). A decrease in late VAS-back scores was demonstrated for MI TLIF (P &lt; .001), but no differences were found in early VAS-back, early ODI, and late ODI. CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF is associated with reduced blood loss, decreased length of stay, decreased complication rates, and increased radiation exposure. The rates of fusion and operative time are similar between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF. Differences in long-term outcomes in MI-TLIF vs O-TLIF are inconclusive and require more research, particularly in the form of large, multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled trials.

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 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.

Comparison of Early Outcomes between Percutaneous Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Chuanli Zhou ◽  
Chao Wang ◽  
Kai Zhu ◽  
Qihao Tu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract BackgroundWith the rapid development of less-invasive techniques, the percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) as a novel minimal surgical technique for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis in recent years. To compare the preliminary efficacy of Endo-TLIF with that of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsBetween May and August 2019, 62 patients with single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by a single surgeon were enrolled in this clinical study: there were 32 patients in the Endo-TLIF group and 30 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. Perioperative parameters, including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), interoperative fluoroscopy time, ambulation time and operative complications, were recorded. At preoperatively, 1 week, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively, the results of clinical metrics such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were obtained and used to compare early outcomes between the two groups. Postoperative fusion rates were assessed by CT scans 12 months after surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were found in the demographic data, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), segment distribution and spondylolisthesis severity, between the two groups. Compared with MIS-TLIF group, Endo-TLIF group had a similar operative time (202.6±31.4 minutes), less intraoperative blood loss (73.0±26.0 ml) and a shorter ambulation time (1.6±0.6 days) but had a longer duration of X-ray radiation (46.3±5.1 seconds). The postoperative VAS scores for back pain as well as the ODI and JOA scores were improved compared with the preoperative scores in the two groups, but the Endo-TLIF group showed more significant improvement in the early follow-up. There were no significant differences in terms of the interbody fusion rate between the two groups. However, no obvious postoperative complications were observed in the study.ConclusionEndo-TLIF technique shows relatively better outcomes compared with MIS-TLIF in terms of an early curative effect, especially one week and six months postoperatively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document