Guide device for percutaneous placement of translaminar facet screws after anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2003 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jee Soo Jang ◽  
Sang Ho Lee ◽  
Sang Rak Lim
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Guide Device ◽  
Fine Print

Because the degree of immediate stabilization provided by cage-assisted anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been shown by several studies to be inadequate, supplementary posterior fixation, such as that created by translaminar or transpedicle screw fixation, is necessary. In this study, the authors studied the ALIF-augmentation procedure in which a special guide device is used to place percutaneously translaminar facet screws in 18 patients with degenerative lumbar disease. The minimum follow-up period was 1 month (mean 6 months, range 1–13 months). Degenerative spondylolisthesis with foraminal stenosis was diagnosed in nine patients, associated degenerative disc disease alone or combined with foraminal stenosis in eight, and recurrent disc herniation in one. Following screw placement, computerized tomography scanning was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the facet screw positioning. All screws were properly placed. No screw penetrated the spinal canal or injured the neural structures. Excellent or good clinical outcomes were demonstrated in all patients at the last follow up. The use of this guide device for post—ALIF percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation represents a safe, accurate, and minimally invasive modality with which to achieve immediate solid fixation in the lumbar spine.

Clinical outcomes and complications associated with pedicle screw fixation—augmented lumbar interbody fusion

2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis J. Rivet ◽  
David Jeck ◽  
James Brennan ◽  
Adrian Epstein ◽  
Carl Lauryssen
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Fiber ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Repeated Surgery ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The authors conducted a prospective study to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes and complications associated with uni- and bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) performed using carbon fiber Brantigan I/F Cages and pedicle screw fixation. Methods. Forty-two consecutive patients who had undergone uni- or bilateral TLIF between February 1999 and July 2000 were prospectively evaluated. Clinical outcome was graded using a modified Prolo Scale, the McGill Pain Index Scale, a follow-up questionnaire, and charts. An independent radiologist assessed radiological outcomes. All patients were followed for at least 1 year. Based on Prolo Scale scores, an excellent or good 1-year outcome was achieved in 73% of patients; 90% of patients responded that they would undergo the procedure again. At 1 year, radiographic fusion was demonstrated in 74% and was statistically related to clinical outcome (p < 0.05). There were no deaths or major hardware failures. Complications requiring repeated surgery included one case of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and one case in which the hemovac drain was retained. There were four cases involving minor wound infections, eight involving CSF leaks, and none requiring repeated surgery. On routine follow-up radiography one pedicle screw was found to be broken; the patient remained asymptomatic and fusion occurred. Conclusions. Unilateral and bilateral TLIF involving placement of carbon fiber cages and pedicle screw fixation are effective treatment options in patients with indications for lumbar arthrodesis. The procedures result in acceptable rates of fusion and clinical success, and a minimal incidence of morbidity when performed by an experienced surgeon.

Biomechanical comparison: stability of lateral-approach anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral fixation compared with anterior-approach anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation in the lower lumbar spine

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Min Kim ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Josemaria Paterno ◽  
Jon Park ◽  
Daniel H. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transpedicular Fixation ◽  
Lower Lumbar Spine ◽  
Lateral Fixation ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The stability of lateral lumbar interbody graft—augmented fusion and supplementary lateral plate fixation in human cadavers has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate biomechanical stabilities of the following: 1) femoral ring allograft (FRA)—augmented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) after left lateral discectomy combined with additional lateral MACS HMA plate and screw fixation; and 2) ALIF combined with posterior transpedicular fixation after anterior discectomy. Methods. Sixteen human lumbosacral spines were loaded with six modes of motion. The intervertebral motion was measured using a video-based motion-capturing system. The range of motion (ROM) and the neutral zone (NZ) in each loading mode were compared with a maximum of 7.5 Nm. The ROM values for both stand-alone ALIF approaches were similar to those of the intact spine, whereas NZ measurements were higher in most loading modes. No significant intergroup differences were found. The ROM and NZ values for lateral fixation in all modes were significantly lower than those of intact spine, except when NZ was measured in lateral bending. All ROM and NZ values for transpedicular fixation were significantly lower than those for stand-alone anterior ALIF. Transpedicular fixation conferred better stabilization than lateral fixation in flexion, extension, and lateral bending modes. Conclusions. Neither approach to stand-alone FRA-augmented ALIF provided sufficient stabilization, but supplementary instrumentation conferred significant stabilization. The MACS HMA plate and screw fixation system, although inferior to posterior transpedicular fixation, provided adequate stability compared with the intact spine and can serve as a sound alternative to supplementary spinal stabilization.

A biomechanical comparison of supplementary posterior translaminar facet and transfacetopedicular screw fixation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Min Kim ◽  
T. Jesse Lim ◽  
Josemaria Paterno ◽  
Daniel H. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Lumbar Stabilization ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Facet screw fixation is the lowest profile lumbar stabilization method. In this study the immediate biomechanical stability provided by the two different types of fixation are compared: translaminar facet screw (TLFS) and transfacetopedicular screw (TFPS) placement after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using a femoral ring allograft. Both facet screw fixation types were also compared with the gold standard, transpedicular screw and rod (TSR) fixation. Methods. Twenty-four human lumbosacral spines were tested in the following sequence: intact state, after discectomy, after ALIF, and after TLFS, TFPS, or TSR fixation. Intervertebral motions were measured by a video-based motion capture system. The range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were compared for each loading to a maximum of 7.5 Nm. The ROMs for stand-alone ALIFs were less than but similar to those of the intact spine, but NZs were slightly increased in all modes. The ROMs for both TLFS and TFPS fixation were significantly decreased from those of the intact spine in all modes and those of the stand-alone ALIF in flexion and extension. The TLFS and TFPS fixations significantly reduced NZs to below that of the intact spine in all modes. Compared with NZs for ALIF, both types of fixation revealed significantly lower values, except for TLFS placement in lateral bending and TFPS fixation in lateral bending and rotation. There were no significant differences between TLFS and TFPS fixation. There were also no significant differences among both TLFS and TFPS and TSR fixations, except that TFPS was inferior to TSR in lateral bending. Conclusions. Stand-alone ALIF may not provide sufficient stability. Both facet fixations produced significant additional stability and both are comparable to TSR fixation. Although TFPS fixation revealed a slightly inferior result, TFPSs can be placed percutaneously with the assistance of fluoroscopic guidance and it makes the posterior facet fixation minimally invasive. Therefore, the TFPS fixation can be considered as a good alternative to TLFS fixation.

Clinical analysis of percutaneous facet screw fixation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jee-Soo Jang ◽  
Sang-Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Fine Print ◽  
Group 1

Object. The authors performed a retrospective study to evaluate the results of percutaneous facet screw fixation (PFSF) after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in comparison with the gold standard, post-ALIF pedicle screw fixation (PSF). Methods. Of 84 patients treated for degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease at the authors' institution, 44 underwent PFSF (Group 1) and 40 underwent PSF (Group 2 [control population]) after ALIF. Function was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring system, and outcome was measured using the Macnab criteria. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery, dynamic lateral (flexion—extension) radiography and computerized tomography scanning were conducted to evaluate the osseous union status. After a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, analysis showed no intergroup statistical difference in terms of ODI score and Macnab outcome criteria (p > 0.05). Excellent or good outcome was obtained in 40 (90.9%) of the 44 patients in Group 1 and 37 (92.5%) of the 40 patients in the control Group 2 (p > 0.05). No patient required a blood transfusion in either group. At 24 months after surgery fusion rates were 95.8% in Group 1 and 97.5% in Group 2. Conclusions. The results of PFSF following ALIF appear to be clinically equivalent to those achieved after PSF, and the procedure represents a safe and minimally invasive modality with which to achieve solid fusion in the lumbar spine.

Resorbable polymer implants in unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2002 ◽  
Vol 97 (4) ◽  
pp. 464-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Lowe ◽  
Jeffrey D. Coe
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Biodegradable Polymers ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Disease ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Sixty patients underwent instrumentation-assisted posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with resorbable polymer cages and autograft bone for degenerative disease. This article discusses the technique of TLIF and its early outcomes. Methods. Although the follow-up period is short and results are preliminary, no adverse events or complications were attributed to the resorbable polymer. Conclusions. Further multicenter clinical studies are underway with a minimum 2-year follow-up period chosen as an endpoint to provide insight as to the future of biodegradable polymers as spinal interbody devices.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jee-Soo Jang ◽  
Sang-Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Level Fusion ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The purpose of this study was to introduce a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique that involves ipsilateral pedicle screw (PS) and contralateral facet screw (FS) fixation. Methods. Eight men and 15 women (mean age 59.5 years, range 48–68) underwent the aforementioned TLIF procedure for degenerative spondylolisthesis and uni- or bilateral radiculopathy. Twenty-two patients underwent one-level fusion and one patient two-level fusion (L4—S1). In all cases the various procedures were undertaken via one small incision. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 310 ml, and the mean operative time was 150 minutes in cases of one-level fusion. The follow-up period ranged from 13 to 28 months (mean 19 months). The mean Numeric Rating Scale score reflected improvement-reductions from 7.5 (back pain) and 7.4 (leg pain) to 2.3 and 0.7, respectively (p < 0.0001). The mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores also reflected improved status (ODI of 33.1 before the surgery to 7.6 after the surgery; p < 0.0001). Examination indicated that 22 of 24 fusion sites exhibited osseous union. At the last follow-up examination, satisfactory outcomes were observed in 21 out of 23 patients. Conclusions. The TLIF with ipsilateral PS and contralateral FS fixation has the advantages over the conventional TLIF of reduced EBL and diminished soft-tissue injury.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document