scholarly journals Indirect Decompression Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Restenosis after an Initial Decompression Surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Nakashima ◽  
Tokumi Kanemura ◽  
Kotaro Satake ◽  
Kenyu Ito ◽  
Yoshimoto Ishikawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Decompression ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Indirect Decompression

Study Design: Retrospective comparative study.Purpose: We compared clinical and radiographical outcomes after lumbar decompression revision surgery for restenosis by lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).Overview of Literature: Indirect lumbar decompression with LLIF was used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases requiring neural decompression. However, only a few studies have focused on the effectiveness of this technique for restenosis after lumbar decompression.Methods: We retrospectively investigated 52 cases involving lumbar interbody fusions for restenosis with spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompressions; these cases consisted of 15 patients who underwent indirect decompression with LLIF and posterior fixation and 37 patients who underwent the same procedure with PLIF. We compared Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and perioperative complications between groups. The cross-sectional areas of the thecal sac on magnetic resonance imaging were measured before, immediately after, and 2 years after surgery. We conducted statistical analyses using unpaired t -test and Fisher’s exact tests, and a <i>p</i> -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: The operative time was significantly shorter in the LLIF group than in the PLIF group (115.3±33.6 min vs. 186.2±34.2 min, respectively; <i>p</i> <0.001). In addition, the intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group than in the PLIF group (58.2±32.7 mL vs. 303.2±140.1 mL, respectively; <i>p</i> <0.001). We found two cases of transient lateral thigh weakness (13.3%) in the LLIF group and five cases of incidental durotomy, one case of deep infection, and one case of neurological deterioration in the PLIF group—resulting in a higher complication incidence (18.9%), although it did not reach (<i>p</i> =0.63). The JOA scores improved significantly in both groups.Conclusions: Indirect decompression using LLIF provided acceptable clinical and radiographical outcomes in patients with restenosis with spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompression; no revision-surgery-specific complications were found. Our results suggest that LLIF is a safe and minimally invasive procedure for revision surgery.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. E11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Kudo ◽  
Ichiro Okano ◽  
Tomoaki Toyone ◽  
Akira Matsuoka ◽  
Hiroshi Maruyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dural Tears

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of revision interbody fusion surgery between lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with propensity score (PS) adjustments and to investigate the efficacy of indirect decompression with LLIF in previously decompressed segments on the basis of radiological assessment.METHODSA retrospective study of patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrence of neurological symptoms after posterior decompression surgery was performed. Postoperative complications and operative factors were evaluated and compared between LLIF and PLIF/TLIF. Moreover, postoperative improvement in cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen was evaluated in LLIF cases.RESULTSA total of 56 patients (21 and 35 cases of LLIF and PLIF/TLIF, respectively) were included. In the univariate analysis, the LLIF group had significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03) and neurological deficits (p = 0.042), whereas the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.02), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001). After PS adjustments, the LLIF group still showed significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03), and the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), EBL (p < 0.001), and operating time (p = 0.04). The PLIF/TLIF group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of SSI (p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference regarding improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the 2 surgical procedures (p = 0.77). The CSAs in the spinal canal and foramen were both significantly improved (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSLLIF is a safe, effective, and less invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates for revision surgery for previously decompressed segments. Therefore, LLIF can be an alternative to PLIF/TLIF for restenosis after posterior decompression surgery.

scholarly journals The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 1621-1628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Abbushi ◽  
Mario Čabraja ◽  
Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale ◽  
Christian Woiciechowsky ◽  
Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cage Migration

Indirect Decompression Through Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Revision Surgery After Lumbar Decompression

2020 ◽  
Vol 141 ◽  
pp. e389-e399
Author(s):  
Takayoshi Shimizu ◽  
Shunsuke Fujibayashi ◽  
Bungo Otsuki ◽  
Koichi Murata ◽  
Shuichi Matsuda
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Decompression ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

scholarly journals Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Ossification of the Yellow Ligament in the Lumbar Spine: First Reported Case

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Kengo Fujii ◽  
Tetsuya Abe ◽  
Toru Funayama ◽  
Hiroshi Noguchi ◽  
Keita Nakayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Lateral Wall ◽  
Posterior Longitudinal Ligament ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Venous Plexus ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Initial Surgery

When ossification of the yellow ligament (OYL) occurs in the lumbar spine and extends to the lateral wall of the spinal canal, facetectomy is required to remove all of the ossified lesion and achieve decompression. Subsequent posterior fixation with interbody fusion will then be necessary to prevent postoperative progression of the ossification and intervertebral instability. The technique of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has recently been introduced. Using this procedure, surgeons can avoid excess blood loss from the extradural venous plexus and detachment of the ossified lesion and the ventral dura mater is avoidable. We present a 55-year-old male patient with OYL at L3/4 and anterior spondylolisthesis of L4 vertebra, with concomitant ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, who presented with a severe gait disturbance. He underwent a 2-stage operation without complications: LLIF for L3/4 and L4/5 was performed at the initial surgery, and posterior decompression fixation using pedicle screws from L3 to L5 was performed at the second surgery. His postoperative progress was favorable, and his interbody fusion was deemed successful. Here, we present the first reported case of LLIF for OYL of the lumbar spine. This procedure can be a good option for OYL of the lumbar spine.

scholarly journals Short-term outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion without decompression for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Campbell ◽  
Pierce D. Nunley ◽  
David Cavanaugh ◽  
Eubulus Kerr ◽  
Philip Andrew Utter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Motor Deficit ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVERecently, authors have called into question the utility and complication index of the lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedure at the L4–5 level. Furthermore, the need for direct decompression has also been debated. Here, the authors report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion, relying only on indirect decompression to treat patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to Grade 1 and 2 spondylolisthesis at the L4–5 level.METHODSThe authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 18 consecutive patients with Grade 1 or 2 spondylolisthesis from a prospectively maintained database. All patients underwent a transpsoas approach, followed by posterior percutaneous instrumentation without decompression. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-12 were administered during the clinical evaluations. Radiographic evaluation was also performed. The mean follow-up was 6.2 months.RESULTSFifteen patients with Grade 1 and 3 patients with Grade 2 spondylolisthesis were identified and underwent fusion at a total of 20 levels. The mean operative time was 165 minutes for the combined anterior and posterior phases of the operation. The estimated blood loss was 113 ml. The most common cage width in the anteroposterior dimension was 22 mm (78%). Anterior thigh dysesthesia was identified on detailed sensory evaluation in 6 of 18 patients (33%); all patients experienced resolution within 6 months postoperatively. No patient had lasting sensory loss or motor deficit. The average ODI score improved 26 points by the 6-month follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the SF-12 mean Physical and Mental Component Summary scores improved by 11.9% and 9.6%, respectively. No patient required additional decompression postoperatively.CONCLUSIONSThis study offers clinical results to establish lateral lumbar interbody fusion as an effective technique for the treatment of Grade 1 or 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. The use of this surgical approach provides a minimally invasive solution that offers excellent arthrodesis rates as well as favorable clinical and radiological outcomes, with low rates of postoperative complications. However, adhering to the techniques of transpsoas lateral surgery, such as minimal table break, an initial look-and-see approach to the psoas, clear identification of the plexus, minimal cranial caudal expansion of the retractor, mobilization of any traversing sensory nerves, and total psoas dilation times less than 20 minutes, ensures the lowest possible complication profile for both visceral and neural injuries even in the narrow safe zones when accessing the L4–5 disc space in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Does Prone Repositioning Before Posterior Fixation Produce Greater Lordosis in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)?

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 364-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon C. Yson ◽  
Jonathan N. Sembrano ◽  
Edward R. G. Santos ◽  
Jeffrey T. P. Luna ◽  
David W. Polly
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Taneichi ◽  
Kota Suda ◽  
Tomomichi Kajino ◽  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Hiroshi Moridaira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support ◽  
The Mean

Object There are no published reports of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which two Brantigan I/F cages were placed per level through a single portal to achieve bilateral anterior-column support. The authors describe such a surgical technique and evaluate the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Methods Data obtained in 86 (93.5%) of the first 92 consecutive patients who underwent the procedure were retrospectively reviewed; the minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system. Disc height, disc angle, cage positioning in the axial plane, and fusion status were radiographically evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33.8 months. The mean improvement in the JOA score was 77.2%. Fusion was successful in 93% of the cases. According to the Farfan method, the mean anterior and posterior disc heights increased from 20.2 and 16.9% preoperatively to 35.9 and 22.7% at follow up, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean disc angle increased from 4.8° preoperatively to 7.5° at last follow-up examination (p < 0.01). Two cages were correctly placed to achieve bilateral anterior-column support in greater than 85% of the cases. The following complications occurred: hardware migration in two patients and deep infection cured by intravenous antibiotic therapy in one patient. Conclusions Unilateral TLIF involving the placement of two Brantigan cages per level led to good clinical results. Two Brantigan cages were adequately placed via a single portal, and reliable bilateral anterior-column support was achieved. Although the less invasive unilateral approach was used, the outcomes were as good as those in many reported series of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in which the Brantigan cages were placed via the bilateral approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document