Perioperative complications in patients undergoing open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as a revision surgery

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imad Saeed Khan ◽  
Ashish Sonig ◽  
Jai Deep Thakur ◽  
Papireddy Bollam ◽  
Anil Nanda
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Neural Injury ◽  
Dural Tears

Object Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been increasingly used to treat degenerative spine disease, including that in patients in whom earlier decompressive procedures have failed. Reexploration in these cases is always challenging and is thought to pose a higher risk of complications. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there are no current studies specifically analyzing the effects of previous lumbar decompressive surgeries on the complication rates of open TLIF. Methods The authors performed a retrospective study of surgeries performed by a single surgeon. A total of 187 consecutive patients, in whom the senior author (A.N.) had performed open TLIF between January 2007 and January 2011, met the inclusion criteria. The patients were divided into two groups (primary and revision TLIF) for the comparison of perioperative complications. Results Overall, the average age of the patients was 49.7 years (range 18–80 years). Of the 187 patients, 73 patients had no history of lumbar surgery and 114 were undergoing revision surgery. Fifty-four patients (28.9%) had a documented complication intraoperatively or postoperatively. There was no difference in the rate on perioperative complications between the two groups (overall, medical, wound related, inadvertent dural tears [DTs], or neural injury). Patients who had undergone more than one previous lumbar surgery were, however, more likely to have suffered from DTs (p = 0.054) and neural injuries (p = 0.007) compared with the rest. Conclusions In the hands of an experienced surgeon, revision open TLIF does not necessarily increase the risk of perioperative complications compared with primary TLIF. Two or more previous lumbar decompressive procedures, however, increase the risk of inadvertent DTs and neural injury.

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 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 Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. E7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro S. Silva ◽  
Paulo Pereira ◽  
Pedro Monteiro ◽  
Pedro A. Silva ◽  
Rui Vaz
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Level ◽  
Negative Exponential

Object Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has the potential advantage of minimizing soft-tissue damage and reducing recovery time compared to open procedures. A steep learning curve has been described for the technique. The aim of the present study was to define the learning curve that describes the progress of a single surgeon performing the MI-TLIF. Methods One hundred fifty consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar disease who underwent 1- or 2-level MI-TLIF were included in the study. Operative time, corrected operative time per level, and complications were analyzed. The learning curve was assessed using a negative exponential curve-fit regression analysis. Results One hundred ten patients underwent 1-level and 18 patients underwent 2-level MI-TLIF; the remaining 22 underwent a single-level procedure plus an ancillary procedure (decompression at adjacent level, vertebral augmentation through fenestrated pedicle screws, interspinous device at adjacent level). Negative exponential curves appropriately described the relationship between operative time and experience for 1-level surgery and after correction of operative time per level (R2 = 0.65 and 0.57). The median operative time was 140 minutes (interquartile range 120–173 minutes), and a 50% learning milestone was achieved at Case 12; a 90% learning milestone was achieved at Case 39. No patient required transfusion in the perioperative period. The overall complication rate was 12.67% and the most frequent complication was a dural tear (5.32%). Before the 50% and 90% learning milestones, the complication rates were 33% and 20.51%, respectively. Conclusions The MI-TLIF is a reliable and effective option for lumbar arthrodesis. According to the present study, 90% of the learning curve can be achieved at around the 40th case.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Cage Retrieval for the Treatment of Pseudarthrosis After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single-Institution Case Series

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M Safaee ◽  
Alexander Tenorio ◽  
Alexander F Haddad ◽  
Bian Wu ◽  
Serena S Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Additional Surgery ◽  
Tract Infections

Abstract BACKGROUND The treatment of pseudarthrosis after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) can be challenging, particularly when anterior column reconstruction is required. There are limited data on TLIF cage removal through an anterior approach. OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as a treatment for pseudarthrosis after TLIF. METHODS ALIFs performed at a single academic medical center were reviewed to identify cases performed for the treatment of pseudarthrosis after TLIF. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, perioperative complications, and 1-yr radiographic data were collected. RESULTS A total of 84 patients were identified with mean age of 59 yr and 37 women (44.0%). A total of 16 patients (19.0%) underwent removal of 2 interbody cages for a total of 99 implants removed with distribution as follows: 1 L2/3 (0.9%), 6 L3/4 (5.7%), 37 L4/5 (41.5%), and 55 L5/S1 (51.9%). There were 2 intraoperative venous injuries (2.4%) and postoperative complications were as follows: 7 ileus (8.3%), 5 wound-related (6.0%), 1 rectus hematoma (1.1%), and 12 medical complications (14.3%), including 6 pulmonary (7.1%), 3 cardiac (3.6%), and 6 urinary tract infections (7.1%). Among 58 patients with at least 1-yr follow-up, 56 (96.6%) had solid fusion. There were 5 cases of subsidence (6.0%), none of which required surgical revision. Two patients (2.4%) required additional surgery at the level of ALIF for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSION ALIF is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of TLIF cage pseudarthrosis with a favorable risk profile.

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.

Increased incidence of cage migration and nonunion in instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bioabsorbable cages

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 388-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arien J. Smith ◽  
Marc Arginteanu ◽  
Frank Moore ◽  
Alfred Steinberger ◽  
Martin Camins
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Fiber ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Screw Breakage ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Cage Migration

Object Recent advances in the field of spinal implants have led to the development of the bioabsorbable interbody cage. Although much has been written about their advantageous characteristics, little has been reported regarding complications associated with these cages. The authors conducted this prospective cohort study to compare fusion and complication rates in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with carbon fiber cages versus biodegradable cages made from 70/30 poly(l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide) (PLDLA). Methods Between January 2005 and May 2006, 81 patients with various degenerative and/or structural pathologies affecting the lumbar spine underwent single- or multilevel TLIF with posterior segmental pedicle screw fixation using implants made of carbon fiber (37 patients) or 70/30 PLDLA (44 patients). Clinical and radiological follow-up was performed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, and is ongoing. The incidence of nonunion, screw breakage, and cage migration were compared between the 2 groups. Results There was no significant difference in demographic data between the 2 groups, the mean number of lumbar levels operated, or distribution of the levels operated. There was a significantly increased incidence of nonunion (8 patients, 18.2%) and cage migrations (8 patients, 18.2%) in patients receiving the PLDLA implants compared with carbon fiber implants (no patients) (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no significant difference in demographic data between patients with cage migration and the rest of the patient population. Five of the 8 cases of migration occurred at the L5–S1 level while the remaining 3 occurred at the L4–5 level. The mean time to implant failure was 9.3 months. Conclusions This study showed an increased incidence of nonunion (18.2%) and postsurgical cage migration (18.2%) in patients undergoing TLIF with biodegradable cages versus carbon fiber implants (0%) (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document