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.

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.

scholarly journals Dynamic stabilization for L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with more than 2 years of follow-up

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. E3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao-Hung Kuo ◽  
Peng-Yuan Chang ◽  
Jau-Ching Wu ◽  
Hsuan-Kan Chang ◽  
Li-Yu Fay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Time Point

OBJECTIVE In the past decade, dynamic stabilization has been an emerging option of surgical treatment for lumbar spondylosis. However, the application of this dynamic construct for mild spondylolisthesis and its clinical outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the management of single-level spondylolisthesis at L4–5. METHODS This study retrospectively reviewed 91 consecutive patients with Meyerding Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4–5 who were managed with surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: DDS and MI-TLIF. The DDS group was composed of patients who underwent standard laminectomy and the DDS system. The MI-TLIF group was composed of patients who underwent MI-TLIF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at each time point of evaluation. Evaluations included radiographs and CT scans for every patient for 2 years after surgery. RESULTS A total of 86 patients with L4–5 spondylolisthesis completed the follow-up of more than 2 years and were included in the analysis (follow-up rate of 94.5%). There were 64 patients in the DDS group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group, and the overall mean follow-up was 32.7 months. Between the 2 groups, there were no differences in demographic data (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) or preoperative clinical evaluations (e.g., visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores). The mean estimated blood loss of the MI-TLIF group was lower, whereas the operation time was longer compared with the DDS group (both p < 0.001). For both groups, clinical outcomes were significantly improved at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery compared with preoperative clinical status. Moreover, there were no differences between the 2 groups in clinical outcomes at each evaluation time point. Radiological evaluations were also similar and the complication rates were equally low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS At 32.7 months postoperation, the clinical and radiological outcomes of DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. DDS might be an alternative to standard arthrodesis in mild lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike fusion, dynamic implants have issues of wearing and loosening in the long term. Thus, the comparable results between the 2 groups in this study require longer follow-up to corroborate.

scholarly journals Extended interbody fusion using cortical bone trajectory screws vs. traditional pedicle screws in the treatment of adjacent segment disease after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws: a retrospective case control study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Song ◽  
Dong lin Ren ◽  
Shuai Han ◽  
Feng Zhang ◽  
Jian Wang
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgical ◽  
Post Operation ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background To present two minimally invasive surgical techniques using cortical bone trajectory screws with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (CBT-PLIF) and traditional pedicle screws and a domino system with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TPS-Domino-TLIF) for adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion surgery, and compare the postoperative radiographic and clinical outcomes between the two techniques for ASD. Methods Of the 36 patients included in this study, 16 patients received CBT-PLIF and the other 20 patients received TPS-Domino-TLIF. Patient demographics, surgical data, complications, radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results The surgical duration of TPS-Domino-TLIF was significantly shorter than that of CBT-PLIF (p < 0.001). There was less estimated blood loss (EBL) and a lower frequency of intra-operative fluoroscopy in TPS-Domino-TLIF as compared with CBT-PLIF (p < 0.001). The lumbar lordotic angle was improved both at immediate post-operation (p = 0.006) and the last follow-up (p = 0.007) in TPS-Domino-TLIF group as compared with CBT-PLIF group. The mean inter-vertebral height in TPS-Domino-TLIF group was significantly larger than that in CBT-PLIF group at immediate post-operation (p = 0.007) and the last follow-up (p = 0.005). The clinical outcomes in terms of the mean VAS-back, VAS-leg and ODI were improved significantly postoperatively in both groups. Conclusions As a more minimally invasive surgical technique for ASD, TPS-Domino-TLIF could be considered a viable alternative to the midline fusion technique using CBT.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Surgical Technique and Results in 24 Patients

Neurosurgery ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean A. Salehi ◽  
Rabih Tawk ◽  
Aruna Ganju ◽  
Frank LaMarca ◽  
John C. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Circumferential Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support

Abstract OBJECTIVE The advantage of anterior column support and fusion in addition to pedicle fixation in patients with degenerative spinal disorders has become increasingly clear. With the increase in popularity of this treatment, a variety of techniques have been used to achieve the goal of anterior column support, fusion, and segmental instrumentation. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion has been used since the late 1940s in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. We evaluated a modification to posterior lumbar interbody fusion called transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on 24 patients (9 women, 15 men) who underwent TLIF. The approach involved a unilateral laminectomy and inferior facetectomy at the level of fusion. The interbody fusion was achieved from this unilateral approach by performing discectomy, arthrodesis, and insertion of one or two titanium cages packed with autologous bone. The average age of the patients in this study was 42.6 ± 12.5 years. Five patients were smokers. Five cases were related to workmen's compensation. Seventeen patients' original symptoms were a combination of low back pain and radiculopathy. Ten patients had had a previous spine operation. RESULTS Eleven patients had L4–S1 TLIFs. The rest of the patients had a single-level TLIF (L2–S1). Average intensive care unit and floor days were 1.1 ± 1.0 and 5.8 ± 2.2 days, respectively. The number of days to ambulation was 2.8 ± 1.6 days. There were a total of six self-limited complications in 24 patients (including one transient neurological complication). The average follow-up time was 16.9 ± 9.1 months. Twenty-two patients had solid fusions. A modified Prolo scale (4 worst, 20 best) was used to evaluate the clinical outcome. The average score was 16.1 ± 4.1. CONCLUSION TLIF is a reliable and safe technique for interbody support that can be performed with excellent clinical outcome. In the authors' experience, TLIF offers excellent exposure with minimal risk. This applies particularly in cases of repeat spine surgery, in which the presence of scar tissue makes traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques difficult or impossible. In addition, TLIF seems to be a viable alternative to anteroposterior circumferential fusion and/or anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

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.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 560-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Michael Y. Wang ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mini Open

Object As minimally invasive approaches gain popularity in spine surgery, clinical outcomes and effectiveness of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with traditional open TLIF have yet to be established. The authors retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients who underwent mini–open TLIF with those who underwent open TLIF. Methods Between 2003 and 2006, 42 patients underwent TLIF for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis; 21 patients underwent mini–open TLIF and 21 patients underwent open TLIF. The mean age in each group was 53 years, and there was no statistically significant difference in age between the groups (p = 0.98). Data were collected perioperatively. In addition, complications, length of stay (LOS), fusion rate, and modified Prolo Scale (mPS) scores were recorded at routine intervals. Results No patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 24 months for the mini-open group and 34 months for the open group. The mean estimated blood loss was 194 ml for the mini-open group and 505 ml for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 3 days for the mini-open group and 5.5 days for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean mPS score improved from 11 to 19 in the mini-open group and from 10 to 18 in the open group; there was no statistically significant difference in mPS score improvement between the groups (p = 0.19). In the mini-open group there were 2 cases of transient L-5 sensory loss, 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision, and 1 case of cage migration that required revision. In the open group there was 1 case of radiculitis as well as 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision. One patient in the mini-open group developed a pseudarthrosis that required reoperation, and all patients in the open group exhibited fusion. Conclusions Mini–open TLIF is a viable alternative to traditional open TLIF with significantly reduced estimated blood loss and LOS. However, the authors found a higher incidence of hardware-associated complications with the mini–open TLIF.

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of Incidence of Adjacent Segment Pathology between Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Treatments for Lumbosacral Junction

Tomography ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-865
Author(s):  
Po-Kuan Wu ◽  
Meng-Huang Wu ◽  
Cheng-Min Shih ◽  
Yen-Kuang Lin ◽  
Kun-Hui Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbosacral Junction ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion

This research compared the incidence of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) between anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF) treatment and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) treatment. Seventy patients were included in this retrospective study: 30 patients received ALIF treatment, and 40 patients received TLIF treatment at a single medical center between 2011 and 2020 with a follow-up of at least 12 months. The outcomes were radiographic adjacent segment pathology (RASP) and clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The mean follow-up period was 42.10 ± 22.61 months in the ALIF group and 56.20 ± 29.91 months in the TLIF group. Following single-level lumbosacral fusion, ALIF is superior to TLIF in maintaining lumbar lordosis, whereas the risk of adjacent instability in the ALIF group is significantly higher. Regarding ASP, the incidence of overall RASP and CASP did not differ significantly between ALIF and TLIF groups.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document