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.

scholarly journals Clinical results of percutaneous biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with application of enhanced recovery after surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. E18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hwa Heo ◽  
Choon Keun Park
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVEThe aims of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are to improve surgical outcomes, shorten hospital stays, and reduce complications. The objective of this study was to introduce ERAS with biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to investigate the clinical results.METHODSPatients were divided into two groups based on the fusion procedures. Patients who received microscopic TLIF without ERAS were classified as the non-ERAS group, whereas those who received percutaneous biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS were classified as the ERAS group. The mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared between the two groups. In addition, demographic characteristics, diagnosis, mean operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), fusion rate, readmissions, and complications were investigated and compared.RESULTSForty-six patients were grouped into the non-ERAS group (microscopic TLIF without ERAS) and 23 patients into the ERAS group (biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS). The VAS score for preoperative back pain on days 1 and 2 was significantly higher in the non-ERAS group than in the ERAS group (p < 0.05). The mean operative duration was significantly higher in the ERAS group than in the non-ERAS group, while the mean EBL was significantly lower in the ERAS group than in the non-ERAS group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). Readmission was required in 2 patients who were from the non-ERAS group. Postoperative complications occurred in 6 cases in the non-ERAS group and in 2 cases in the ERAS group.CONCLUSIONSPercutaneous biportal endoscopic TLIF with an ERAS pathway may have good aspects in reducing bleeding and postoperative pain. Endoscopic fusion surgery along with the ERAS concept may help to accelerate recovery after surgery.

scholarly journals Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: operative and clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. E14 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Paul G. Kolcun ◽  
G. Damian Brusko ◽  
Gregory W. Basil ◽  
Richard Epstein ◽  
Michael Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Level Fusion

OBJECTIVEOpen spinal fusion surgery is often associated with significant blood loss, postoperative pain, and prolonged recovery times. Seeking to minimize surgical and perioperative morbidity, the authors adopted an endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) technique performed without general anesthesia. In this report, they present data on the first 100 patients treated with this procedure.METHODSThe authors conducted a retrospective review of the first 100 patients who underwent awake endoscopic MIS-TLIF at a single institution between 2014 and 2017. Surgery was performed while the patient was sedated but without intubation or the use of general anesthetic or narcotic agents. Long-lasting (liposomal) bupivacaine was used for local analgesia. The discectomy and placement of an expandable interbody graft were performed endoscopically, followed by percutaneous pedicle screw implantation. Inclusion criteria for the procedure consisted of diagnosis of degenerative disc disease with grade I or II spondylolisthesis and evidence of spinal stenosis or nerve impingement with intractable symptomatology.RESULTSOf the first 100 patients, 56 were female and 44 were male. Single-level fusion was performed in 84 patients and two-level fusion in 16 patients. The most commonly fused level was L4–5, representing 77% of all fused levels. The mean (± standard deviation) operative time was 84.5 ± 21.7 minutes for one-level fusions and 128.1 ± 48.6 minutes for two-level procedures. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 65.4 ± 76.6 ml for one-level fusions and 74.7 ± 33.6 ml for two-level fusions. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.4 ± 1.0 days. Four deaths occurred in the 100 patients; all four of those patients died from complications unrelated to surgery. In 82% of the surviving patients, 1-year follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were available. The mean preoperative ODI score was 29.6 ± 15.3 and the mean postoperative ODI score was 17.2 ± 16.9, which represents a significant mean reduction in the ODI score of −12.3 using a two-tailed paired t-test (p = 0.000001). In four cases, the surgical plan was revised to include general endotracheal anesthesia intraoperatively and was successfully completed. Other complications included two cases of cage migration, one case of osteomyelitis, and one case of endplate fracture; three of these complications occurred in the first 50 cases.CONCLUSIONSThis series of the first 100 patients to undergo awake endoscopic MIS-TLIF demonstrates outcomes comparable to those reported in our earlier papers. This procedure can provide a safe and efficacious option for lumbar fusion with less morbidity than open surgery. Further refinements in surgical technique and technologies will allow for improved success.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Attractive Option for Select Failed Backs

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind G. Kulkarni ◽  
Shashidhar Bangalore Kantharajanna ◽  
Abhilash N. Dhruv
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Percentage Change ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Vas Scores ◽  
The Mean

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>Retrospective case series.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>To compare minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) outcomes in primary and revision surgeries.</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>Revision spinal fusion is often associated with an increased risk of approach-related complications. Patients can potentially benefit from the decreased approach-related morbidity associated with MI-TLIF.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Sixty consecutive MI-TLIF patients (20 failed back [Fa group], 40 primary [Pr group]) who underwent surgery between January 2011 and May 2012 were reviewed after Institutional Review Board approval to compare operative times, blood loss, complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain before surgery and at the last follow-up.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Nineteen revision surgeries were compared with 36 primary surgeries. One failed back and four primary patients were excluded because of inadequate data. The mean follow-up times were 28 months and 24 months in the Pr and Fa groups, respectively. The mean pre- and postoperative ODI scores were 53.18 and 20.23 in the Pr group and 52.01 and 25.72 in the Fa group, respectively (ODI percentage change: Pr group, 60.36%±29.73%; Fa group, 69.32%±13.72%; <italic>p</italic>=0.304, not significant). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores for back pain were 4.77 and 1.75 in the Pr group and 4.1 and 2.0 in the Fa group, respectively, and the percentage changes were statistically significant (VAS back pain percentage change: Pr group, 48.78±30.91; Fa group, 69.32±13.72; <italic>p</italic>=0.027). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores for leg pain were 6.52 and 1.27 in the Pr group and 9.5 and 1.375 in the Fa group, respectively (VAS leg pain percentage change: Pr group, 81.07±29.39; Fa group, 75.72±15.26; <italic>p</italic>=0.538, not significant). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss and no complications.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>MI-TLIF outcomes were comparable between primary and revision surgeries. The inherent technique of MI-TLIF is particularly suitable for select failed backs because it exploits the intact paramedian corridor.</p></sec>

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.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 644-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel W. Terman ◽  
Timothy J. Yee ◽  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Adam A. Khan ◽  
Frank La Marca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Surgical Approach ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Function

Object Minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been demonstrated in previous studies to offer improvement in pain and function comparable to those provided by the open surgical approach. However, comparative studies in the obese population are scarce, and it is possible that obese patients may respond differently to these two approaches. In this study, the authors compared the clinical benefit of open and MI TLIF in obese patients. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study based on review of electronic medical records at a single institution. Eligible patients had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2, were ≥ 18 years of age, underwent single-level TLIF between 2007 and 2011, and outcome was assessed at a minimum 6 months postoperatively. The authors categorized patients according to surgical approach (open vs MI TLIF). Outcome measures included postoperative improvement in visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results A total 74 patients (21 open and 53 MI TLIF) were studied. Groups had similar baseline characteristics. The median BMI was 34.4 kg/m2 (interquartile range 31.6–37.5 kg/m2). The mean follow-up time was 30 months (range 6.5–77 months). The mean improvement in VAS score was 2.8 (95% CI 1.9–3.8) for the open group (n = 21) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.8–3.1) for the MI group (n = 53), which did not significantly differ (unadjusted, p = 0.49; adjusted, p = 0.51). The mean improvement in ODI scores was 13 (95% CI 3–23) for the open group (n = 14) and 15 (95% CI 8–22) for the MI group (n = 45), with no significant difference according to approach (unadjusted, p = 0.82; adjusted, p = 0.68). After stratifying by BMI (< 35 kg/m2 and ≥ 35 kg/m2), there was still no difference in either VAS or ODI improvement between the approaches (both unadjusted and adjusted, p > 0.05). Complications and EBL were greater for the open group than for the MI group (p < 0.05). Conclusions Obese patients experienced clinically and statistically significant improvement in both pain and function after undergoing either open or MI TLIF. Patients achieved similar clinical benefit whether they underwent an open or MI approach. However, patients in the MI group experienced significantly decreased operative blood loss and complications than their counterparts in the open group.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive anterior and lateral transpsoas approaches for closed reduction of grade II spondylolisthesis: initial clinical and radiographic experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. E4 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Xu ◽  
Konrad Bach ◽  
Juan S. Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complete Reduction ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVEMinimally invasive anterior and lateral approaches to the lumbar spine are increasingly used to treat and reduce grade I spondylolisthesis, but concerns still exist for their usage in the management of higher-grade lesions. The authors report their experience with this strategy for grade II spondylolisthesis in a single-surgeon case series and provide early clinical and radiographic outcomes.METHODSA retrospective review of a single surgeon’s cases between 2012 and 2016 identified all patients with a Meyerding grade II lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) targeting the slipped level. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were collected and analyzed. Changes in radiographic measurements, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test for continuous and ordinal variables, respectively.RESULTSThe average operative time was 199.1 minutes (with 60.6 ml of estimated blood loss) for LLIFs and 282.1 minutes (with 106.3 ml of estimated blood loss), for ALIFs. Three LLIF patients had transient unilateral anterior thigh numbness during the 1st week after surgery, and 1 ALIF patient had transient dorsiflexion weakness, which was resolved at postoperative week 1. The mean follow-up time was 17.6 months (SD 12.5 months) for LLIF patients and 10 months (SD 3.1 months) for ALIF patients. Complete reduction of the spondylolisthesis was achieved in 12 LLIF patients (75.0%) and 7 ALIF patients (87.5%). Across both procedures, there was an increase in both the segmental lordosis (LLIF 5.6°, p = 0.002; ALIF 15.0°, p = 0.002) and overall lumbar lordosis (LLIF 2.9°, p = 0.151; ALIF 5.1°, p = 0.006) after surgery. Statistically significant decreases in the mean VAS and the mean ODI measurements were seen in both treatment groups. The VAS and ODI scores fell by a mean value of 3.9 (p = 0.002) and 19.8 (p = 0.001), respectively, for LLIF patients and 3.8 (p = 0.02) and 21.0 (p = 0.03), respectively, for ALIF patients at last follow-up.CONCLUSIONSEarly clinical and radiographic results from using minimally invasive LLIF and ALIF approaches to treat grade II spondylolisthesis appear to be good, with low operative blood loss and no neurological deficits. Complete reduction of the spondylolisthesis is frequently possible with a statistically significant reduction in pain scores.

scholarly journals Modification of Magerl’s technique for the placement of translaminar facet screws in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical note and comparative outcome analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daoliang Xu ◽  
Haimin Jin ◽  
Jiaoxiang Chen ◽  
Xiangyang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Modified Technique ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background To describe and illustrate a safe and effective technique for the placement of translaminar facet screws (TLFS) in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods Forty-two patients with single-level lumbar diseases were divided into two groups randomly. 21 patients were treated by traditional TLIF using bilateral pedicle screws fixation (BPS) while the other patients underwent insertion of a unilateral pedicle screw (UPS)and contralateral TLFS using our modified technique. In this technique, a small unicortical “hole” was formed adjacent to the contralateral facet joint to ensure that insertion of the screw could be directly visualized through the hole to prevent violation of the spinal canal. The ODI, JOA, VAPS questionnaire, the mean operation time, mean operative blood loss, length of stay and postoperative complications were collected for analysis. Results There is no significant difference between the BPS and UPS + TLFS group in the preoperative and postoperative ODI, JOA or VAPS at each follow- up visit, while the UPS + TLFS group using our modified technique significantly reduced the mean operation time, the mean estimated blood loss and the length of stay. These results demonstrated this modified technique to be safe and effective in TLIF. Conclusions In contrast to conventional TLIF, our modified technique for placing TLFS in TLIF can reduce soft tissue injuries, reduce the operation risk of violation of the spinal canal and the expenses, minimize radiation exposure, and shorten the length of the operation without a concurrent reduction in clinical efficacy.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via a novel tubular retractor

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052092009
Author(s):  
Yan Wang ◽  
Yaqing Zhang ◽  
Fanli Chong ◽  
Yue Zhou ◽  
Bo Huang
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fatty Infiltration ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Leakage ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Multifidus Muscle ◽  
Tubular Retractor ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Objective To assess the feasibility and clinical results of microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) using a novel tapered tubular retractor that preserves the multifidus. Method A total of 122 patients underwent MIS-TLIF using a tapered tubular retractor system from March 2016 to August 2017. Perioperative parameters and follow-up outcomes were reviewed. Results The follow-up period was 23.95 ± 1.43 months. The operative time averaged 130.48 ± 34.44 minutes. The estimated blood loss was 114.10 ± 96.70 mL. The mean time until ambulation was 16.33 ± 6.29 hours. The average visual analogue scale (leg/waist) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (preoperative to last follow-up) improved from 4.93 ± 2.68/3.74 ± 2.28 to 0.34 ± 0.77/0.64 ± 0.74 and from 59.09% ± 22.34 to 17.04% ± 8.49, respectively. At the last follow-up, 98.36% of the patients achieved solid fusion. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in two cases. The asymptote of the surgeon’s learning curve occurred at the 25th case. There were no significant differences between the preoperative qualitative and quantitative analyses of multifidus muscle fatty infiltration and those at the final follow-up. Conclusion MIS-TLIF can be performed safely and effectively using this tapered tubular retractor system, which helps preserve the multifidus.

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.

scholarly journals The role of the mini-open thoracoscopic-assisted approach in the management of metastatic spine disease at the thoracolumbar junction

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. E16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijay M. Ravindra ◽  
Andrea Brock ◽  
Al-Wala Awad ◽  
Ricky Kalra ◽  
Meic H. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Thoracolumbar Junction ◽  
Open Thoracotomy ◽  
Preoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mini Open

OBJECTIVE Treatment advances have resulted in improved survival for many cancer types, and this, in turn, has led to an increased incidence of metastatic disease, specifically to the vertebral column. Surgical decompression and stabilization prior to radiation therapy have been shown to improve functional outcomes, but anterior access to the thoracolumbar junction may involve open thoracotomy, which can cause significant morbidity. The authors describe the treatment of 12 patients in whom a mini-open thoracoscopic-assisted approach (mini-open TAA) to the thoracolumbar junction was used to treat metastatic disease, with an analysis of outcomes. METHODS The authors reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients treated for thoracolumbar junction metastatic disease with mini-open TAA between 2004 and 2016. Data collection included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, follow-up duration, and pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores and Frankel grades. RESULTS Twelve patients underwent a mini-open TAA procedure for metastatic disease at the thoracolumbar junction. The mean age of patients was 59 years (range 53–77 years), mean estimated blood loss was 613 ml, and the mean duration of the mini-open TAA procedure was 234 minutes (3.8 hours). The median length of stay in the hospital was 7.5 days (range 5–21 days). All 12 patients had significant improvement in their postoperative pain scores in comparison with their preoperative pain scores (p < 0.001). No patients suffered from worsening neurological function after surgery, and of 7 patients who presented with neurological dysfunction, 6 (86%) had an improvement in their Frankel grade after surgery. No patients experienced delayed hardware failure requiring reoperation over a mean follow-up of 10 months (range 1–45 months). CONCLUSIONS The mini-open TAA to the thoracolumbar junction for metastatic disease is a durable procedure that has a reduced morbidity rate compared with traditional open thoracotomy for ventral decompression and fusion. It compares well with traditional and novel posterior approaches to the thoracolumbar junction. The authors found a significant improvement in preoperative pain and neurological symptoms that supports greater use of the mini-open TAA for the treatment of complex metastatic disease at the thoracolumbar junction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document