Comparative study of multilevel posterior interbody fusion plus anterior longitudinal ligament release versus classic multilevel posterior interbody fusion in the treatment of adult spinal deformities

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silviu Sabou ◽  
Apostolos Lagaras ◽  
Rajat Verma ◽  
Irfan Siddique ◽  
Saeed Mohammad
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Longitudinal Ligament ◽  
Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
Release Group ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVESagittal imbalance and loss of lumbar lordosis are the main drivers of functional disability in adult degenerative scoliosis. The main limitations of the classic posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique are increased risk of neurological injury and suboptimal correction of the segmental lordosis. Here, the authors describe the radiological results of a modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion and compare the results with a historical cohort of patients.METHODSEighty-two consecutive patients underwent surgical treatment for degenerative scoliosis/kyphosis in a single tertiary referral center for complex spinal surgery. Fifty-five patients were treated using the classic multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MPLIF) technique and 27 were treated using the modified MPLIF technique to include a release of the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) and the annulus. A radiographic review of both series of patients was performed by two independent observers. Functional outcomes were obtained, and patients were registered in the European Spine Tango registry.RESULTSThe mean L4–5 disc angle increased by 3.14° in the classic MPLIF group and by 12.83° in MPLIF plus ALL and annulus release group. The mean lumbar lordosis increased by 15.23° in the first group and by 25.17° in the second group. The L4–S1 lordosis increased on average by 4.92° in the classic MPLIF group and increased by a mean of 23.7° in the MPLIF plus ALL release group when both L4–5 and L5–S1 segments were addressed. There were significant improvements in the Core Outcome Measures Index and EQ-5D score in both groups (p < 0.001). There were no vascular or neurological injuries observed in either group.CONCLUSIONSThe authors’ preliminary results suggest that more correction can be achieved at the disc level using posterior-based ALL and annulus release in conjunction with posterior lumbar interbody fusion. They demonstrate that ALL and annulus release can be performed safely using a posterior-only approach with minimal risk of vascular injury. However, the authors recommend that this approach should only be used by surgeons with considerable experience in anterior and posterior spinal surgery.

Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Kenji Ohzono ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
The Mean

Object A systematic review concerning surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) showed that a satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with adjunctive spinal fusion than with decompression alone. However, the role of adjunctive fusion and the optimal type of fusion remain controversial. Therefore, operative management for multilevel DS raises more complicated issues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to elucidate clinical and radiological outcomes after 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS with the least bias in determination of operative procedure. Methods Since 2005, all patients surgically treated for lumbar DS at the authors' hospital have been treated using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screws, irrespective of severity of slippage, patient age, or bone quality. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 20 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS and had been followed up for 2 years or longer (2-level PLIF group). They also analyzed data from 92 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent single-level PLIF for single-level DS during the same time period and had been followed for at least 2 years (1-level PLIF group). This second group served as a control. Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Fusion status and sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine were assessed by comparing serial plain radiographs. Surgery-related complications and the need for additional surgery were evaluated. Results The mean JOA score improved significantly from 12.8 points before surgery to 20.4 points at the latest follow-up in the 2-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 51.8%), and from 14.2 points preoperatively to 22.5 points at the latest follow-up in the single-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 55.3%). At the final follow-up, 95.0% of patients in the 2-level PLIF group and 96.7% of those in the 1-level PLIF group had achieved solid spinal fusion, and the mean sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine was more lordotic than before surgery in both groups. Early surgery-related complications, including transient neurological complications, occurred in 6 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (30.0%) and 11 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (12.0%). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was found in 4 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (20.0%) and 10 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (10.9%). Conclusions The clinical outcome of 2-level PLIF for 2-level lumbar DS was satisfactory, although surgery-related complications including symptomatic adjacent-segment disease were not negligible.

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.

Impact of sufficient contact between the autograft and endplate soon after surgery to prevent nonunion at 12 months following posterior lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 796-805
Author(s):  
Hiroki Ushirozako ◽  
Tomohiko Hasegawa ◽  
Shigeto Ebata ◽  
Tetsuro Ohba ◽  
Hiroki Oba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complete Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Occupancy Rate ◽  
Screw Loosening ◽  
Translucent Zone ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVENonunion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is associated with poor long-term outcomes in terms of health-related quality of life. Biomechanical factors in the fusion segment may influence spinal fusion rates. There are no reports on the relationship between intervertebral union and the absorption of autografts or vertebral endplates. Therefore, the purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors of nonunion after PLIF and identify preventive measures.METHODSThe authors analyzed 138 patients who underwent 1-level PLIF between 2016 and 2018 (75 males, 63 females; mean age 67 years; minimum follow-up period 12 months). Lumbar CT images obtained soon after the surgery and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up were examined for the mean total occupancy rate of the autograft, presence of a translucent zone between the autograft and endplate (more than 50% of vertebral diameter), cage subsidence, and screw loosening. Complete intervertebral union was defined as the presence of both upper and lower complete fusion in the center cage regions on coronal and sagittal CT slices at 12 months postoperatively. Patients were classified into either union or nonunion groups.RESULTSComplete union after PLIF was observed in 62 patients (45%), while nonunion was observed in 76 patients (55%). The mean total occupancy rate of the autograft immediately after the surgery was higher in the union group than in the nonunion group (59% vs 53%; p = 0.046). At 12 months postoperatively, the total occupancy rate of the autograft had decreased by 5.4% in the union group and by 11.9% in the nonunion group (p = 0.020). A translucent zone between the autograft and endplate immediately after the surgery was observed in 14 and 38 patients (23% and 50%) in the union and nonunion groups, respectively (p = 0.001). The nonunion group had a significantly higher proportion of cases with cage subsidence and screw loosening at 12 months postoperatively in comparison to the union group (p = 0.010 and p = 0.009, respectively).CONCLUSIONSA lower occupancy rate of the autograft and the presence of a translucent zone between the autograft and endplate immediately after the surgery were associated with nonunion at 12 months after PLIF. It may be important to achieve sufficient contact between the autograft and endplate intraoperatively for osseous union enhancement and to avoid excessive absorption of the autograft. The achievement of complete intervertebral union may decrease the incidence of cage subsidence or screw loosening.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and segmental lumbar lordosis

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Kakkar ◽  
P. B. R. Sirigiri ◽  
A. Howieson ◽  
A. Siva Raman ◽  
R. J. Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult degenerative scoliosis with 1 or 2 dislocated levels

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles-Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette ◽  
Louis Ratte ◽  
Alexandre Poignard ◽  
Jean-Charles Auregan ◽  
Steffen Queinnec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
Surgical Morbidity ◽  
Adult Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
The Mean

OBJECT Frequent complications of posterolateral instrumented fusion have been reported after treatment of degenerative scoliosis in elderly patients. Considering that in some cases, most of the symptomatology of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) is a consequence of the segmental instability at the dislocated level, the use of minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to manage symptoms can be advocated to reduce surgical morbidity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm outcomes of 1- or 2-level minimally invasive ALIFs in ADS patients with 1- or 2-level dislocations. METHODS A total of 47 patients (average age 64 years; range 43–80 years) with 1- or 2-level ALIF performed for ADS (64 levels) in a single institution were included in the study. An independent spine surgeon retrospectively reviewed all the patients’ medical records and radiographs to assess operative data and surgery-related complications. Clinical outcome was reported using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS) for lumbar and leg pain. Intraoperative data and complications were collected. Fusion and risk for adjacent-level degeneration were assessed. RESULTS The mean follow-up duration was 3 years (range 1–10 years). ODI, and back and leg pain VAS scores were significantly improved at last follow-up. A majority of patients (74%) had a statistically significant improvement in their ODI score of more than 20 points at latest follow-up and 1 had a worsening of his disability. The mean operating time was 166 minutes (range 70–355 minutes). The mean estimated blood loss was 410 ml (range 50–1700 ml). Six (5 major and 1 minor) surgical complications (12.7% of patients) and 13 (2 major and 11 minor) medical complications (27.7% of patients) occurred without death or wound infection. Fusion was achieved in 46 of 47 patients. Surgery resulted in a slight but significant decrease of the Cobb angle, and improved the pelvic parameters and lumbar lordosis, but had no effect on the global sagittal balance. At latest follow-up, 9 patients (19.1%) developed adjacent-segment disease at a mean of 2 years’ delay from the index surgery; 4 were symptomatic but treated medically, and none required iterative surgery. CONCLUSIONS Single- or 2-level minimally invasive fusion through a minimally invasive anterior approach in some selected cases of ADS produced a good functional outcome with a high fusion rate. They were associated with a significantly lower rate of complications in this study than the historical control.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 617-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michiel B. Lequin ◽  
Dagmar Verbaan ◽  
Gerrit J. Bouma
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Good Recovery ◽  
Trabecular Metal ◽  
The Mean

Object Patients with recurrent sciatica due to repeated reherniation of the intervertebral disc carry a poor prognosis for recovery and create a large burden on society. There is no consensus about the best treatment for this patient group. The goal of this study was to evaluate the 12-month results of the placement of stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages in these patients. Methods The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients with recurrent disc herniations treated with stand-alone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with Trabecular Metal cages. At 1 year patients were evaluated using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Furthermore, Likert scores of perceived recovery and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded. Lumbar spine radiographs after 1 year were compared with postoperative radiographs to measure subsidence. Stability of the operated segment was assessed using dynamic radiography. Results The patient group consisted of 26 patients (62% male) with a mean age of 45.7 ± 11.4 years (± SD). Patients had a history of 1 (31%), 2 (42%), or more (27%) discectomies at the same level. The mean follow-up period was 15.3 ± 7.3 months. At follow-up the mean VAS score for pain in the affected leg was 36.7 ± 27.9. The mean VAS score for back pain was 42.5 ± 30.2. The mean RMDQ score at follow-up was 9.8 ± 6.2. Twelve (46%) of the 26 patients had a global perceived good recovery. With respect to treatment satisfaction, 18 patients (69%) were content or very content with the operation and would recommend it. Disc height was increased immediately postoperatively, and at the 1-year follow-up it was still significantly higher compared with the preoperative height (mean 41% ± 38.7%, range −25.7 to 126.8, paired t-test, both p < 0.001), although a mean of 7.52% ± 11.6% subsidence occurred (median 2.0% [interquartile range 0.0%–10.9%], p < 0.003). No significant correlation between subsidence and postoperative back pain was found (Spearman's rho −0.2, p = 0.459). Flexion-extension radiographs showed instability in 1 patient. Conclusions Although only 46% of patients reported a good recovery with significant reductions in back and leg pain, 85% of patients reported at least some benefit from the operation, and a marked improvement in working status at follow-up was noted. In view of previously published poor results of instrumented lumbar fusion for patients with failed back surgery syndrome, the present data indicate that Trabecular Metal interbody fusion cages can be used in a stand-alone fashion and should not always need supplemental posterior fixation in patients with recurrent disc herniation without spinal instability, although a long-term follow-up study is warranted.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document