scholarly journals Incidence and Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 8185-8192
Author(s):  
Jiawen Ye ◽  
Sizhen Yang ◽  
Zihan Wei ◽  
Chenhui Cai ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Diseases ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

scholarly journals A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 958-963
Author(s):  
I. David Kaye ◽  
Terry Fang ◽  
Scott C. Wagner ◽  
Joseph S. Butler ◽  
Arjun Sebastian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Posterolateral Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Control Series ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Level Group

Study Design: Retrospective, single institution, multisurgeon case control series. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in reoperation rates or outcomes for patients undergoing 2-level posterolateral fusion (PLF) augmented by a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at only one of the levels or at both. Methods: A total of 416 patients were identified who underwent 2-level PLF with a TLIF at either one of those levels (n = 183) or at both (n = 233) with greater than 1-year follow-up. Demographic, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data was reviewed for each patient. These included age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charleston Comorbidity Index, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and patient-reported outcome measures. Results: Each cohort underwent 24 reoperations. Although the number of overall reoperations was not significantly different ( P > .05), among the reoperation types, there were significantly more reoperations for adjacent segment disease in the 2-level group compared to the 1-level group (19 vs 12, P = .04). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between the groups ( P > .05). Although both groups experienced significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index ( P < .001) and Short Form–12 health questionnaire ( P < .001), there were no differences between improvements for 1- versus 2-level cohorts. Conclusions: For patients undergoing 2-level PLF in the setting of a TLIF, using a TLIF at one versus both levels does not seem to influence reoperation rates or outcomes. However, reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease are increased in the setting of a 2-level PLF augmented by a 2-level TLIF.

scholarly journals The feasibility for a novel minimally invasive surgery–percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a cadaveric experiment

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Yin ◽  
Yaoshen Zhang ◽  
Aixing Pan ◽  
Yi Ding ◽  
Liming Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Diseases ◽  
Articular Process ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

Abstract Background The objective of the study was to evaluate our innovative percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods Two fresh-frozen human cadavers with soft tissues were donated for the experiment. Both cadavers had no history of previous spine surgery. The PE-TLIF surgery was performed on 3 levels (L4-5 of the first one, and L3-4, L4-5 of the second one) in October 2015. The PE-TLIF technique mainly included the following aspects: primary guide pins and a specially designed superior articular process (SAP) guide insertion, working channel setup, endoscopic decompression and fusion, and pedicle screw implantation and fixation. Under the surveillance of C-arm fluoroscope, four primary guide pins were inserted. The inferior primary guide in the hypothetically symptomatic side was confirmed as the first guide pin. At the end of the first guide pin, the specially designed SAP guide was installed. The secondary guide pin was inserted in the SAP via self-designed SAP guide. Under the protection cannula, part of the superior articular process was removed by oriented SAP resection device, so the working channel was smoothly put through the Kambin’s triangle. The endoscope was inserted close to the exiting nerve root. Rotation of the working channel kept the nerve root out of it. Results Three levels of PE-TLIF were successfully performed in two cadavers. Self-designed SAP guide made the secondary guide pin inserting the SAP accurately. Decompression was adequate and the traversing nerve root was relieved. Three aimed intervertebral levels are implanted with two 7-mm-high PEEK cages and one expandable cage. The expandable cage could be adjusted from 8 mm to 13 mm. Surgical incisions included four 15 mm incisions for percutaneous screw fixation and one 12 mm incision for working channel. There was no nerve injury during the operations. Conclusions Our present results showed that the novel minimally invasive surgery PE-TLIF was feasible for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

scholarly journals Benefit of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vs Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Lumbar Spine Disorders

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D. Glassman ◽  
Leah Y. Carreon ◽  
Zoher Ghogawala ◽  
Kevin T. Foley ◽  
Matthew J. McGirt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Posterolateral Spinal Fusion ◽  
Room Time ◽  
Operating Room Time

Abstract BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use and potential benefits of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF), previous studies have not documented improved clinical outcomes with TLIF vs PSF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of TLIF with PSF in patients with spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and adjacent level disease. METHODS: The National Neurosurgical Quality and Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had a lumbar fusion. Eighty-five percent (1722) of enrolled cases had 12-month follow-up data. There were 306 PSF patients and 1230 TLIF patients. PSF cases within each diagnostic subgroup were propensity-matched to patients who had TLIF. Sufficient propensity-matched controls were available for patients with spondylolisthesis (109), spinal stenosis (63), and adjacent segment disease (47). RESULTS: Operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between PSF and TLIF in all 3 propensity-matched groups. In the spondylolisthesis group, there was a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) with TLIF vs PSF at 3 months (19.4 vs 26.0, P =.009), 12 months (20.8 vs 29.3, P =.001), and in percentage reaching minimal clinically important difference at 12 months (80% vs 62%, P =.007). There were no differences in ODI improvement between PSF and TLIF in the stenosis or adjacent segment disease groups. CONCLUSION: TLIF generated more favorable ODI outcomes than PSF for patients with spondylolisthesis, but not for patients with spinal stenosis or adjacent segment disease. There was also equivalence in operating room time and estimated blood loss between TLIF and PSF, potentially altering the long-standing assumption that PSF is a simpler procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document