Conventional Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Do TLIF and PLIF Techniques Differ in Perioperative Complications? - Comparison of Complications Rates of Two High Volume Centers.

Retrospective bicentric Cohort Study. Posterior (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have been clinically proven for the surgical treatment of degenerative spinal disorders. Despite many retrospective studies, the superiority of either technique has not been proven to date. In the literature, the complication rate of the conventional PLIF technique is reported to be significantly higher, but with inconsistent complication recording. In this retrospective bicentric study, a less invasive PLIF technique was compared with the conventional TLIF technique and complications were recorded using the validated SAVES V2 classification system. 1142 patients underwent PLIF (702) or TLIF (n = 440) up to 3 levels in two specialized centers. Epidemiological data, intra- and postoperative complications during hospitalization and after discharge were analyzed according to SAVES V2. The overall complication rate was 13.74%. TLIF-patients had slightly significant more complications than PLIF-patients (TLIF = 16.6%/PLIF = 11.9%, P = .0338). Accordingly, complications during revision surgeries were more frequent in the first cohort (TLIF = 20.9%/PLIF = 12.6%; P = .03252). In primary interventions, the surgical technique did not correlate with the complication rate (TLIF = 12.4%/PLIF = 11.7%). There were no significant differences regarding severity of complications. An important component of this work is the complication recording according to a uniform classification system (SAVES V2). In contrast to previous literature, we could demonstrate that there is not a significant difference between the two surgical techniques.

Clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a modified posterior spinous process-splitting approach for lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study.

In the conventional posterior approach to the lumbar spine for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), the paravertebral muscles are stripped from the spinous process. The authors developed a novel surgical procedure in which TLIF was performed via a modified spinous process-splitting (SPS) approach that enabled the preservation of the attachment of the paravertebral muscles to the spinous process. The SPS TLIF group comprised 52 patients with lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgery using a modified SPS TLIF technique, whereas the control group comprised 54 patients who underwent conventional TLIF. Compared with the control group, the SPS TLIF group had a significantly shorter operation time, smaller intra- and postoperative blood loss volumes, and shorter hospital stay and time to ambulation (p < 0.05). The SPS TLIF group had a lower mean visual analog scale score for back pain than the control group on both postoperative day 3 and at 2 years postoperatively (p < 0.05). Follow-up MRI showed changes in the paravertebral muscles in 46 of 54 patients (85%) in the control group and 5 of 52 patients (10%) in the SPS TLIF group (p < 0.001). This novel technique may be a useful alternative to the conventional posterior approach for TLIF.

Circumferential Fusion Employing Transforaminal vs. Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Potential Impact on Implants Stability.

BackgroundDifferent fusion techniques were introduced in clinical practice in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease, however, no evidence has been provided on the advantages of one technique over another.The Objective of This StudyIs to assess the potential impact of circumferential fusion employing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) vs. direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) on pedicle screw stability.Materials and MethodsThis is a single-center prospective evaluation of consecutive 138 patients with degenerative instability of lumbar spinal segments. Either conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterior fusion or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) using cages of standard dimensions, were applied. The conventional open technique was used to supplement TLIF with pedicle screws while percutaneous screw placement was used in patients treated with DLIF. The duration of the follow-up accounted for 24 months. Signs of pedicle screws loosening (PSL) and bone union after fusion were assessed by the results of CT imaging. Fisher‘s exact test was used to assess the differences in the rate of CT loosening and revision surgery because of implant instability. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between potential factors and complication rate.ResultsThe rate of PSL detected by CT and relevant revision surgery in groups treated with TLIF and DLIF accounted for 25 (32.9%) vs. 2 (3.2%), respectively, for the former and 9 (12.0%) vs. 0 (0%) for the latter (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0043) respectively. According to the results of logistic regression, a decrease in radiodensity values and a greater number of levels fused were associated with a rise in PSL rate. DLIF application in patients with radiodensity below 140 HU was associated with a considerable decrease in complication rate. Unipolar or bipolar pseudoarthrosis in patients operated on with TLIF was associated with a rise in PSL rate while patients treated with DLIF tolerate delayed interbody fusion formation. In patients treated with TLIF supplementary total or partial posterior fusion resulted in a decline in PSL rate.ConclusionEven though the supplementary posterior fusion may considerably reduce the rate of PSL in patients treated with TLIF, the application of DLIF provide greater stability resulting in a substantial decline in PSL rate and relevant revision surgery.

A comparison of the bilateral decompression via unilateral approach versus conventional approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in the elderly

BackgroundBilateral decompression via unilateral approach (BDUA) is an effective surgical approach for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. However, no studies of prognosis, especially the recovery of the soft tissue, have reported using BDUA in an elderly population. The aims of these research were to investigate the early efficacy of the bilateral decompression via unilateral approach versus conventional approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in the patients over 65 years of age, especially in the perioperative factors and the recovery of the soft tissue.MethodsThe clinical data from 61 aging patients with lumbar degenerative disease who received surgical treatment were retrospectively analyzed. 31 cases who received the lumbar interbody fusion surgery with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach (BDUA) were compared with 30 cases who received conventional approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. The radiographic parameters were measured using X-ray including lumbar lordosis angle and fusion rate. Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes at different time points. Fatty degeneration ratio and area of muscle/vertebral body were used to detect recovery of soft tissue.ResultsThe BDUA approach group was found to have significantly less intraoperative blood loss(p < 0.05) and postoperative drainage(p < 0.05) compared to conventional approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion group. Symptoms of spinal canal stenosis and nerve compression were significantly relieved postoperatively, as compared with the preoperative state. However, the opposite side had a lower rate of fatty degeneration (9.42 ± 3.17%) comparing to decompression side (11.68 ± 3.08%) (P < 0.05) six months after surgery in the BDUA group. While there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in two sides of conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach group six months after surgery.ConclusionsBilateral decompression via unilateral approach (BDUA) is able to reduce the intraoperative and postoperative body fluid loss in the elderly. The opposite side of decompression in BDUA shows less fatty degeneration in 6 months, which indicates better recovery of the soft tissue of the aging patients.

Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextPrevious studies have shown that oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) can improve neurological symptoms via “indirect decompression.” However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and/or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach, especially in patients with severe central canal stenosis. PurposeTo investigate the clinical outcome of OLIF without posterior decompression versus conventional TLIF and/or PLIF in severe lumbar stenosis diagnosed on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Study designRetrospective comparative study. Patient sampleFifty-one patients who underwent OLIF and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF. Outcome measuresClinical outcome score by Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and radiographic outcomes (disc height and fusion rate on computed tomography scan). Materials/methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who underwent OLIF with supplemental percutaneous pedicle screws (55 levels; OLIF group) and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF (47 levels; TPLIF group). The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac was measured preoperatively in OLIF and TPLIF groups, but postoperatively only in the OLIF group. All patients were diagnosed with severe stenosis based on Schizas classification (Grade C or D) on magnetic resonance imaging. We compared radiographic and clinical outcome scores (JOA score) between the 2 groups at 1 year of follow-up. The radiographic evaluation included the fusion status and disc height on computed tomography scan. Surgical data and perioperative complications were also investigated. ResultsThe baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were equivalent in preoperative diagnosis, JOA score, and disc height and/or angle. The cross-sectional area significantly increased postoperatively, which confirmed indirect decompressive effect in the OLIF group. The JOA score improved in both groups at the 1-year follow up (76.6% vs. 73.5% improvement rate in the OLIF and TPLIF groups, respectively). The fusion rate at the 1-year follow-up was higher in the OLIF group than in the TPLIF group (87.2% vs. 57.4%). The disc height restoration was also better in the OLIF group. The operative data demonstrated less estimated blood loss and operative time in the OLIF group. ConclusionsOLIF and conventional TLIF and/or PLIF demonstrated comparable short-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of severe degenerative lumbar stenosis. However, the surgical and radiographic outcomes were better in the OLIF group. Surgeons should choose an appropriate approach on a case by case basis, recognizing the perioperative complications specific to each fusion procedure.

Technique of Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may have advantages of minimally invasive fusion surgery as well as those of endoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to present the biportal endoscopic TLIF technique along with video presentations and a review of the literature on this technique. Basically, the biportal endoscopic TLIF technique is similar to minimally invasive TLIF with a tubular retractor. There were 2 options in the biportal endoscopic TLIF procedures. The first was the insertion of one long TLIF cage and the other was the insertion of 2 short posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages. After the interbody fusion procedures, percutaneous pedicles screw fixation was performed. Biportal endoscopic TLIF achieved complete neural decompression through laminectomy and facetectomy like conventional TLIF. Endplate preparation was performed completely under a clear and magnified endoscopic view. It was also feasible to insert a large TLIF cage or 2 cages for PLIF without exiting nerve root injury. Biportal endoscopic TLIF might have the advantages of endoscopic surgery as well as minimally invasive fusion surgery. Direct neural decompression, endplate preparation under endoscopic guidance, and the insertion of a large TLIF cage or 2 PLIF cages may be the merits of biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion procedures.

Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p ​< ​0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p ​< ​0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p ​< ​0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p ​< ​0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p ​< ​0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p ​> ​0.05). ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation. The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

The midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF. From a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D. Of 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551). Compared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.

Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: technical innovations and outcomes.

Innovations in surgical techniques and technologies have enabled spine surgeons to offer patients less morbid alternatives to traditional spine procedures. This review will explore the development of the endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) without general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA) and discuss the technical refinements and innovations learned from experiences with this technique. The Awake TLIF employs several key technological innovations: (I) conscious sedation; (II) endoscopic visualization; (III) an expandable interbody device; (IV) recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein; (V) long-acting local analgesia; and (VI) percutaneous instrumentation. Technical refinements, including premedication for prophylaxis against nausea, vomiting, and epistaxis, were made as a result of early experiences with this technique. Results from the first 100 patients to undergo the Awake TLIF demonstrated durable clinical benefit beyond one year postoperatively. Operating time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay averages well below those generally seen with conventional MIS TLIF. Patients achieved a significant reduction in Oswestry Disability Index from baseline of -12.3 points (P<0.0001). In this initial 100 patient cohort, four conversions to GETA were required and four complications resulted, three of which occurred during the first 50 cases. To date, over 200 Awake TLIF cases and the first three-level procedure have been performed. Endoscopic TLIF without the use of general anesthesia is a novel but promising approach for short-segment lumbar fusion. Continued technical innovations will likely afford greater improvements in outcomes, both in the acute and long-term recovery periods.

Revision for Endoscopic Diskectomy: Is Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion an Option?

This study aims to report the clinical outcome of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) on recurrent disk herniation and to compare the outcome of stand-alone LLIF to that of conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A retrospective study of 47 patients with recurrent disk herniation was included from January 2008 to October 2016. The inclusion criteria were 1) with recurrent disk herniation that needs revision surgery, 2) with only 1 previous percutaneous endoscopic lumbar diskectomy surgery, 3) underwent 1-level stand-alone LLIF or 1-level TLIF surgery, and 4) with follow-up more than 1 year. Patients were asked to complete the following questionnaires for outcome evaluation: visual analog scales (VAS) for both low back pain and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey. Eighteen patients underwent stand-alone LLIF, and 29 patients underwent TLIF surgery. Radiographic analysis revealed a similar baseline and postoperative lumbar lordosis in both the LLIF and TLIF groups. Two weeks after surgery, the ODI and VAS scores showed a significant decrease in both groups. The TLIF group showed significantly larger postoperative VAS back pain after surgery (P= 0.03). For both VAS leg pain and ODI score during follow-up, no significance difference was found between the LLIF and TLIF groups. Stand-alone LLIF is a safe and effective approach with low morbidity and acceptable complication rates for patients with recurrent disk herniation after a previous percutaneous endoscopic lumbar diskectomy surgery. Compared with the TLIF procedure, LLIF could achieve a similar improvement of patient-reported outcome with a better VAS back pain score.

Three-year postoperative outcomes between MIS and conventional TLIF in1-segment lumbar disc herniation

Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes between minimally invasive (MIS) and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in treating one-segment lumbar disc herniation (LDH).Material and methods: One-hundred and six patients treated by MIS-TLIF (50 cases) or conventional TLIF (56 cases) were included. Perioperative results were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. Radiologic parameters were based on a comparison of preoperative and three-year postoperative lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, sacral slope, the cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscle and fusion rates.Results: MIS TILF had significantly less blood, shorter operation time, mean return to work time and lower intramuscular pressure compared with the conventional group during the operation. VAS scores for lower back pain and ODI in MIS-TLIF were significantly decreased. The mean cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscle was significantly decreased after surgery in the conventional TLIF group and no significant intragroup differences were established in the MIS-TLIF group. No significant differences were found in fusion rate, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis and sacral slope.Conclusions: Both MIS and conventional TLIF were beneficial for patients with LDH. However, MIS-TLIF manifests a great improvement in perioperative outcomes, low back pain, disability and preventing paraspinal muscle atrophy during the follow-up period observation.

MIS Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Literature Review and Biomechanical Comparison of an Expandable MIS TLIF With Conventional TLIF and ALIF.

Biomechanical study and review of literature on expandable lumbar interbody fusion constructs. To evaluate the biomechanical stability of expandable interbody devices. Lumbar interbody implants placed from an anterior or lateral approach are desirable due to their large size, providing a stable fusion environment. Posterior implants are typically limited by their access corridor. Expandable footprint transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) interbodies may allow for a minimally invasive TLIF approach with the biomechanical benefits of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)-sized graft; however, this requires experimental investigation. Six cadaveric L1-sacrum segments were tested intact with pure moments of ± 7.5 N m in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Specimens received at L4-5 either a medial-lateral expandable TLIF cage (MLX-TLIF) or a conventional polyether ether ketone (PEEK) banana-shaped TLIF cage (Conv-TLIF) first. Both were tested with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation. Testing was repeated with the alternate cage and fixation. Motion marker arrays were fixed to L4 and L5 to assess range of motion. Results were compared with published data for a PEEK ALIF cage with anterior plate and a PEEK ALIF cage with bilateral PS fixation, tested under the same conditions. The most rigid construct was ALIF with bilateral PS fixation in flexion-extension and axial rotation, whereas MLX with bilateral PS was most rigid in lateral bending. Conv-TLIF with unilateral PS was the least rigid construct. MLX-TLIF with unilateral PS provided similar range of motion to Conv-TLIF with bilateral PS in flexion-extension and lateral bending, and ALIF with anterior plate in lateral bending. The MLX-TLIF cage with unilateral PS fixation provided comparable stability to conventional TLIF with bilateral PS fixation and ALIF with anterior plate treatments. The large footprint of the expandable cage may reduce the TLIF supplemental fixation demands and facilitate minimally invasive single-position surgery. If needed, additional stability may be achieved by using bilateral PS. N/A.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Multilevel: Comparison with Conventional Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

Minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has shown superior or noninferior results compared with conventional TLIF in single segments. There were no comparative studies between MIS and conventional TLIF in multisegments. The purpose of this study was to compare MIS and conventional TLIF in multisegments. This is a cross-sectional study of 2- or 3-segment lumbar degenerative disease that was treated with either MIS (27 cases) or conventional TLIF (43 cases). Whole spine sagittal radiography was done preoperatively and 1 year after surgery. Clinical outcomes, perioperative outcomes, and fusion rate were compared. Radiologic parameters, such as cervical lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic parameters, were measured 1 year after surger. The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, operated level, and follow-up period. Both groups showed improvement in visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index after surgery. The MIS TILF group had a significantly shorter operation time (167.10 vs. 216.58 minutes) and less blood loss (532.41 vs. 865.81 mL). Only cervical lordosis (MIS TLIF, -17.2°; conventional TLIF, -11.2°) was significantly different preoperatively between the groups. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in radiologic parameter and fusion rate. In the intragroup comparisons, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, and sacral slope were significantly increased and pelvic tilt was significantly decreased after surgery. MIS TLIF and conventional TLIF showed similar clinical and radiologic outcomes. MIS TLIF may be a better choice for 2- or 3-segment lumbar fusion in perioperative outcomes.

A Comparison of Outcome between Isobar TTL and Conventional Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Background Spine fusion using posterior instrumentation is currently considered the gold standard in surgical treatment for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Treatment-related problems for spinal fusion include stiffness, pseudoarthrosis, mechanical failure, and “adjacent segment disease (ASD).” The Isobar TTL is a form of pedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization (PDS) device. Several studies have shown the Isobar TTL to have good short-term outcomes in terms of fusion and decreasing the incidence of ASD. However, there are limited studies comparing the functional outcomes of the Isobar TTL with the conventional two-level transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods This is a retrospective analysis of spine fusion and hybrid fusion cases done for degenerative lumbar disease in our institution during 2009 to 2012. Functional outcomes were measured preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively using a 100-scaled visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) mental and physical components. Radiographic parameters to assess for ASD were also measured on standing lumbar films. These included disc height at the level of dynamic stabilization, disc height of the adjacent levels, foraminal height of the index level and adjacent levels, adjacent level disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sacral slope. t test was used to analyze the data. p value of &lt; 0.05 was determined significant. Results A total of 30 cases were studied, 15 of which used Isobar TTL (Scient'x USA, Maitland, Florida, United States) treatment and 15 underwent a two-level TLIF. Mean length of follow-up was 24 months. VAS and ODI scores were slightly lower in the TLIF group at 12 and 24 months postoperatively ( p = 0.86). The SF-36 mental component was 5.51 points higher in the Isobar TTL group at 12 months post-op but was closer to TLIF values by the end of 24 months ( p = 0.8). SF-36 physical component was higher in the TLIF at both 12 ( p = 0.91) and 24 months ( p = 0.37). Disc height showed deterioration in both groups at 12 months postoperatively with a greater reduction in height in the Isobar TTL group ( p = 0.71). Disc angle was better preserved in the Isobar TTL group with an improvement of 1.3 and 0.61 degrees at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Lumbar lordosis was better preserved in the TLIF group with an increment of 1.36 degrees at 12 months ( p = 0.3) and 2.56 degrees at 24 months ( p = 0.77). The Isobar TTL group showed an initial reduction in lumbar lordosis by 3.4 degrees. This improved by 1.49 degrees at the end of 24 months. Among the radiographic parameters, only sacral slope was found to have a significant difference between the Isobar TTL and TLIF groups (mean difference 5.53, p = 0.03). Operation time was longer by 90.83 minutes in the Isobar TTL group ( p = 0.09). The duration of hospital stay was the same for all the patients with an average of 8.83 ± 5.71 days ( p = 0.94). Conclusions The Isobar TTL is a valid treatment option in the management of degenerative lumbar disease. Short-term results of the Isobar TTL are comparable to a two-level conventional TLIF in terms of functional and radiographic outcomes.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Uninstrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine.

Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored “much better” in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.

Optimization of segmental lumbar spine instability treatment using minimally invasive spinal fusion technique

Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using transpedicular rods and interbody cage, which is used to treat segmental instability, is associated with a significant paravertebral muscle and ligament injury. A new rigid fusion method was introduced to improve the outcome of patients' treatment. To conduct a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of minimally invasive fusion technique and TLIF to improve the treatment results in patients with symptomatic lumbar spine degeneration concomitant with moderate segmental instability of the lumbar spine. The study involved 90 patients, which were divided into 2 groups. Transforaminal interbody fusion with Pezo-T PEEK cage was performed after spinal canal reconstruction in both groups. In the first group (n=45), interbody fusion was augmented by 4-point transpedicular rod fixation (Konmet, Russia); in the second group (n=45), by Coflex-F rigid interspinous spacer. Patients were followed up and the results were assessed within 24 months after surgery. The intergroup comparison of pain level using the visual analogue scale, the need for analgesics, and quality of life according to Oswestry Disability Index score during the early postoperative period demonstrated significantly better outcomes in the second group of patients due to lesser operative trauma of the paravertebral soft tissue. Interbody fusion was observed within 20-36 months in 95% of group I patients and 94% of group II patients (p>0.05). Postoperative complications were observed in 17.8% of patients in group I and in 2.2% of cases in group II (p<0.001). Stabilization by rigid interspinous spacer and transforaminal interbody cage provides better clinical outcomes and fewer postoperative complications as compared to the conventional TLIF technique with similar X-ray rate of bone block formation in patients with moderate segmental instability of the lumbar spine, thus optimizing the treatment of such patients.

Primary stiffness of a modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage with integrated screw fixation: cadaveric biomechanical study.

In vitro biomechanical study using human fresh-frozen vertebrae. To investigate the influence of the additional screw fixation on the stability of a noncommercially available prototype transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage, when used as a stand-alone fusion device and in combination with pedicle screws (PSs). Generally interbody fusion cages are supplemented by additional fixation devices such as PS. However, such posterior instrumented techniques are associated with additional soft-tissue trauma and potentially increased complication rate. To limit such drawbacks, a conventional posterior TLIF cage was modified to allow supplemental screw fixation to the adjacent vertebral bodies, to increase initial stiffness and possibly allow as a stand-alone posterior interbody cage. Six monosegmental lumbar spine segments were loaded in a spine simulator with pure bending moments of 7.5 Nm in lateral bending, flexion/extension, and axial rotation. The following paradigms were tested: intact spines; a destabilized spine (i.e., after discectomy and unilateral facetectomy); and the modified TLIF cage with (i.e., fixed TLIF cage) and without (i.e., TLIF cage) integrated screw fixation as a stand-alone model and with and without additional posterior fixation with bilateral PS. The range of motion (RoM) was recorded by a 3-dimensional motion analysis system. The TLIF cage with integrated screw fixation had minimal additional stabilizing effect in all motion planes with or without supplemental PS fixation. Moreover, compared with the intact spines, the stand-alone TLIF cage with and without integrated screw fixation did not reduce the RoM in any of the 3 motion planes. Comparison of the TLIF cage with integrated screw fixation to the TLIF cage supplemented with PS showed a significantly greater RoM in all testing conditions (P < 0.05). In several testing paradigms, the prototype TLIF cage with the integrated screw fixation had limited effect in reducing RoM and providing stability. The PS was the main contributor in reducing RoM in the destabilized spine and remains the current "gold standard" in posterolateral spinal fixation. N/A.

Slip Reduction Rate between Minimal Invasive and Conventional Unilateral Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in Patients with Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.

ObjectiveTo compare the slip reduction rate and clinical outcomes between unilateral conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (conventional TLIF) and unilateral minimal invasive TLIF (minimal TLIF) with pedicle screw fixation for treatment of one level low-grade symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis.MethodsBetween February 2008 and April 2012, 25 patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis underwent conventional TLIF (12 patients) and minimal TLIF (13 patients) in single university hospital by a single surgeon. Lateral radiographs of lumbar spine were taken 12 months after surgery to analyze the degree of slip reduction and the clinical outcome. All measurements were performed by a single observer.ResultsThe demographic data between conventional TLIF and minimal TLIF were not different. Slip percentage was reduced from 15.00% to 8.33% in conventional TLIF, and from 14.15% to 9.62% in minimal TLIF. In both groups, slip percentage was significantly improved postoperatively (p=0.002), but no significant intergroup differences of slip percentage in preoperative and postoperative were found. The reduction rate also not different between conventional TLIF (45.41±28.80%) and minimal TLIF (32.91±32.12%, p=0.318).ConclusionConventional TLIF and minimal TLIF with pedicle screw fixation showed good slip reduction in patients with one level low-grade symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis. The slip percentage and reduction rate were similar in the conventional TLIF and minimal TLIF.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spine

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a popular, well established technique for achieving circumferential fusion by a posterior approach. In an effort to minimize surgical approach-related morbidity, surgeons have devised minimally invasive (MIS) techniques that use specialized retractor systems, using muscle-splitting exposure, to provide surgical access directly over the region of interest. The indications for performing a MIS TLIF are similar to the conventional TLIF and include low-grade spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease with back pain with or without radiculopathy, and recurrent disc herniations. The surgical indications, contraindications, and an overview of the surgical technique are presented in this review. A systematic literature review was also undertaken to identify studies that compared MIS TLIF with open TLIF. The search revealed 8 controlled cohort studies that have shown significantly lower postoperative morbidity in the MIS TLIF cohorts while having comparable clinical outcomes with open TLIF cohorts. The higher complication rate during the learning curve of this procedure remains a concern. However, the evidence available is of low quality, and well designed prospective controlled trials are needed to decisively prove the benefits observed so far.

Efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with enhanced decompression to treat lower lumber spine disease

Objective To analyze the clinical effectiveness of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) to treat the lower lumbar retrogression. Methods From Feb. 2005 to Feb.2009,26 cases were treated by TLIF after laminoplasty and decompression, removed the superior articular process and inside and upside part of inferior articular process, enlarged the canal for decompression,released the spinal cord and nerve roots completely. The conventional TLIFs was completed then. Results All the 26 cases were followed up 12 to 36 months, 20.6 months in average. There were no infection,loosening and breakdown of pedicle nails , no movement of Cake. There was numb and pain of lower limbs of 1 case, which was relieved obviously after 3 months of symptomatic treatment, and non-union of fused lumbar of another cases after 18 months. The fusion rate was 96.2%.The height of afterskirt of intervertebral space rised from (5.12 ± 0.58)mm before operation to (9.86 ± 0.71)mm at 1 week after operation, and became (9.67 ± 0.69)mm at the last follow-up(P＜0.01 ). At the last follow-up, the visual scales of lumbar lordosis were improved to (1.95 ± 0.39) from(7.99 ± 0.74 )before operation(P＜0.01). According to modified Prolo functional score, 14 cases were rated as excellent, 9 as good,2 as fair and 1 as poor, the rate of excellence and good was 88.5%.Conclusion The modified TLIF can expand the indication of operation,ensure the operation safer, decease the complication, and be satisfatory to treat the lower lumbar retrogression with spinal stenosis and bilateral intervertebral foramen stenosis. Key words: Lumbar; Retrogression; Spinal fusion; Modified; Decompression