scholarly journals Comparative Prospective Study Reporting Intraoperative Parameters, Pedicle Screw Perforation, and Radiation Exposure in Navigation-Guided versus Non-navigated Fluoroscopy-Assisted Minimal Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarun Dusad ◽  
Vishal Kundnani ◽  
Shumayou Dutta ◽  
Ankit Patel ◽  
Gaurav Mehta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Independent Observer ◽  
Screw Perforation ◽  
Navigation Group

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>Prospective cohort study.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>To compare intraoperative parameters, radiation exposure, and pedicle screw perforation rate in navigation-guided versus non-navigated fluoroscopy-assisted minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>The poor reliability of fluoroscopy-guided instrumentation and growing concerns about radiation exposure have led to the development of navigation-guided instrumentation techniques in MIS TLIF. The literature evaluating the efficacy of navigation-guided MIS TLIF is scant.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Eighty-seven patients underwent navigation- or fluoroscopy-guided MIS TLIF for symptomatic lumbar/lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Demographics, intraoperative parameters (surgical time, blood loss), and radiation exposure (sec/mGy/Gy.cm<sup>2</sup> noted from C-arm for comparison only) were recorded. Computed tomography was performed in patients in the navigation and non-navigation groups at postoperative 12 months and reviewed by an independent observer to assess the accuracy of screw placement, perforation incidence, location, grade (Mirza), and critical versus non-critical neurological implications.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Twenty-seven patients (male/female, 11/16; L4–L5/L5–S1, 9/18) were operated with navigation-guided MIS TLIF, whereas 60 (male/female, 25/35; L4–L5/L5–S1, 26/34) with conventional fluoroscopy-guided MIS TILF. The use of navigation resulted in reduced fluoroscopy usage (dose area product, 0.47 Gy.cm<sup>2</sup> versus 2.93 Gy.cm<sup>2</sup>), radiation exposure (1.68 mGy versus 10.97 mGy), and fluoroscopy time (46.5 seconds versus 119.08 seconds), with <italic>p</italic>-values of &lt;0.001. Furthermore, 96.29% (104/108) of pedicle screws in the navigation group were accurately placed (grade 0) (4 breaches, all grade I) compared with 91.67% (220/240) in the non-navigation group (20 breaches, 16 grade I+4 grade II; <italic>p</italic>=0.114). None of the breaches resulted in a corresponding neurological deficit or required revision.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>Navigation guidance in MIS TLIF reduced radiation exposure, but the perforation status was not statistically different than that for the fluoroscopy-based technique. Thus, navigation in nondeformity cases is useful for significantly reducing the radiation exposure, but its ability to reduce pedicle screw perforation in nondeformity cases remains to be proven.</p></sec>

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Complications, and Early Results

Neurosurgery ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Rosenberg ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Brachial Plexopathy ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the safety, surgical efficacy, and advantages of the transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion when combined with pedicle screw fixation. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the records of 22 patients (age range, 34–63 yr; mean, 49 yr) with Grade I or II spondylolisthesis who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Nineteen patients presented with low back pain and associated radiculopathy, and three presented with low back pain only. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed at L4-L5 in 8 patients, L5-S1 in 11 patients, L3-L4 and L4-L5 in 2 patients, and L4-L5 and L5-S1 in 1 patient. Periodic follow-up took place 1 to 12 months after surgery (mean, 5.3 mo). Decompression is performed according to clinical circumstances. Pedicle screws are placed, and a discectomy is carried out. The cartilaginous endplates are removed. The interspace is gradually distracted, resulting in lost disc height being regained, and interbody fusion cages are positioned. The pedicle screw-and-rod construct is then compressed, restoring lumbar lordosis. RESULTS Low back pain completely resolved in 16 patients, moderate relief from pain was achieved in 5 patients, and the pain was unchanged in one patient. Nonneurological complications included intraoperative durotomy in one patient and postoperative wound infection in two. In one patient, postoperative mild L5 motor paresis resolved. One patient had a temporary brachial plexopathy due to intraoperative positioning, and one patient had peripheral polyneuropathy secondary to prolonged intraoperative blood pressure cuff inflation. CONCLUSION Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and effective method for achieving circumferential spinal fusion via a single-stage procedure. This procedure is particularly useful in restoring disc space height and lumbar lordosis.

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.

Biomechanical comparison of transdiscal fixation and posterior fixation with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L5–S1 lumbosacral joint

2018 ◽  
Vol 232 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Özalp ◽  
Mustafa Özkaya ◽  
Onur Yaman ◽  
Teyfik Demir
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Cage ◽  
Interbody Fusion Cage

Transdiscal screw fixation is generally performed in the treatment of high-grade L5–S1 spondylolisthesis. The main thought of the study is that the biomechanical performances of the transdiscal pedicle screw fixation can be identical to standard posterior pedicle screw fixations with or without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage insertion. Lumbosacral portions and pelvises of 45 healthy lambs’ vertebrae were dissected. Animal cadavers were randomly and equally divided into three groups for instrumentation. Three fixation systems, L5–S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation, L5–S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage insertion, and L5–S1 transdiscal pedicle screw fixation, were generated. Axial compression, flexion, and torsion tests were conducted on test samples of each system. In axial compression, L5–S1 transdiscal fixation was less stiff than L5–S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage insertion. There were no significant differences between groups in flexion. Furthermore, L5–S1 posterior fixation was stiffest under torsional loads. When axial compression and flexion loads are taken into consideration, transdiscal fixation can be alternatively used instead of posterior pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of L5–S1 spondylolisthesis because it satisfies enough stability. However, in torsion, posterior fixation is shown as a better option due to its higher stiffness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document