Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approach Research Articles

Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up.

Incongruity between irregularly shaped vertebral endplates and the uniform surfaces of stock interbody fusion cages has been identified as contributing to cage subsidence, pseudarthrosis, and unpredictable alignment. Advances in manufacturing techniques have driven the development of personalized interbody cages (PICs) that can match individual endplate morphology and provide the exact shape and size needed to fill the disc space and achieve the planned correction. This study used computed tomography (CT) imaging to evaluate the implant-endplate contact area, fusion, subsidence, and achievement of planned alignment correction in patients receiving PIC devices. This retrospective study included patients treated for adult spinal deformity at a single site and implanted with PIC devices at L4 to L5 or L5 to S1 for segmental stabilization and alignment correction, who received 1-year postoperative CT images as part of their standard of care. An evaluation using 3-dimensional thin-section scans was conducted. Implant-endplate contact and signs of fusion were assessed in each CT slice across both endplates. The degree of subsidence as well as measures of segmental and global lumbar alignment were also assessed. Fifteen patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 68.2 years. Follow-up ranged between 9 and 14 months. Twenty-six total lumbar levels were implanted; 20 with PIC devices via the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach, 2 with stock cages via the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach, and 4 with PIC devices via the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach. CT analysis of PIC-implanted levels found an overall implant-endplate contact area ratio of 93.9%, a subsidence rate of 4.5%, a fusion rate of 100%, and satisfactory segmental and global lumbar correction compared with the preoperative plan. PIC implants can provide nearly complete contact with endplate surfaces regardless of the individual endplate morphology. Subsidence, fusion, and alignment assessments in this tomographic study illustrated results consistent with the benefits of a personalized interbody implant.

A Cadaveric Comparison of Discectomy Performance During Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approach Using an Endoscopic Technique versus a Minimally Invasive Tubular Approach.

Cadaveric study. Compare discectomy performance between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) done via an endoscopic versus a tubular technique. Performance of an adequate discectomy is essential to lumbar fusion when performing a TLIF. Previous cadaveric studies comparing open and minimally invasive techniques have reported 36.6%-80% discectomy. There is controversy whether an endoscopic TLIF (E-TLIF) can allow for an adequate discectomy. An E-TLIF was performed on 14 discs (T12-L5) and a minimally invasive tubular TLIF (T-TLIF) was performed on 15 discs (T12-L4, L5-S1). Fellowship trained surgeons performed the TLIFs. Each disc was transected after discectomy and a digital image was analyzed using an imaging processing software to determine the percent of discectomy. Each quadrant of the discectomy was compared. Quadrant one was defined as the left posterior-ipsilateral quadrant of the disc, with each quadrant numbered 2-4 clockwise around the disc. The time to perform the discectomy was compared. Pedicle screws were placed contralaterally to the TLIF and the change in interpedicular distance was compared between techniques after expandable cage implantation as a marker for indirect decompression. A student's t-test was used to determine statistical significance. There was no difference in discectomy performance between techniques (48.86%+/-6.98% T-TLIF vs. 50.26%+/-7.38% E-TLIF, P=0.61). There was no statistical difference between T-TLIF vs E-TLIF at quadrants 1, 3 and 4. There was a difference in discectomy performance at quadrant 2 (39.02%+/-10.18% T-TLIF vs 50.13%+/-14.00% E-TLIF, P=0.02). There was no statistical difference between interpedicular distance created (2.20mm+/-1.97mm T-TLIF vs 1.36mm+/-1.82mm E-TLIF, P=0.24). E-TLIF took less time than MIS-TLIF (20.00min+/-7.12min vs 15.22min+/-4.42min, P=0.048). Our cadaveric study demonstrates that an adequately performed E-TLIF discectomy may be comparable to a T-TLIF discectomy. Further research is required to maximize the efficiency and instrumentation of this technique.

Comparative Analysis of Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Wiltse Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches for Treating Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of two different surgical approaches, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and Wiltse TLIF, in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis and also to provide the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Methods: This retrospective study included 600 patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent fusion surgery at a single academic institution between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: traditional open TLIF (group A; 300 patients) and the Wiltse TLIF approach (group B; 300 patients). Preoperative diagnostic tests were performed on all patients. Results: The fluoroscopy time for the Wiltse TLIF group was longer, whereas the mean blood loss for the Wiltse TLIF approach was less. Both techniques resulted in significant improvements in pain relief and functional disability, with no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their pre- or post-operative (Oswestry Disability Index) ODI scores. The Wiltse TLIF technique resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays and had a lower rate of complications compared with the open TLIF technique. Conclusion: The Wiltse TLIF approach showed advantages in shorter surgical times, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, whereas the traditional open TLIF approach exhibited shorter fluoroscopy times.

TLIF is Associated with Lower Rates of Adjacent Segment Disease and Complications Compared to ALIF: A Matched-Cohort Analysis.

Retrospective cohort. To compare the rate of adjacent segment disease (ASD) in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of degenerative stenosis and spondylolisthesis. ALIF and TLIF are frequently used to treat Lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis. While both approaches have distinct advantages, it is unclear whether there are any differences in rates of ASD and postoperative complications. A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent index 1-3 levels ALIF or TLIF between 2010-2022, using the PearlDiver Mariner Database, an all-claims insurance database (120 million patients). Patients with a history of prior lumbar surgery and those undergoing surgery for cancer, trauma, or infection were excluded. Exact 1:1 matching was performed using demographic factors, medical comorbidities, and surgical factors found to be significantly associated with ASD in a linear regression model. The primary outcome was a new diagnosis of ASD within 36 months of index surgery and secondary outcomes were all-cause medical and surgical complications. Exact 1:1 matching resulted in two equal groups of 106,451 patients undergoing TLIF and ALIF. The TLIF approach was associated with a lower risk of ASD (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.56-0.59, P < 0.001), and all-cause medical complications (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.98, P=0.002). All-cause surgical complications were not significantly different between both groups. After 1:1 exact matching to control for confounding variables, this study suggests that for patients with symptomatic degenerative stenosis and spondylolisthesis, a TLIF procedure (compared to ALIF) is associated with a decreased risk of developing ASD within 36 months of index surgery. Future prospective studies are needed to corroborate these findings. III.

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.

Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases

BACKGROUND CONTEXTOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up. PURPOSETo compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs. STUDY DESIGNRetrospective comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLEFifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF. OUTCOME MEASURESClinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded. METHODSA retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4–5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches. RESULTSThere was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298). CONCLUSIONSBoth the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.

Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Current Research.

There are many types of minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Among them is the recently introduced biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) might combine the advantages of minimally invasive TLIF and endoscopic spine approaches. However, clinical evidence in support of biportal endoscopic TLIF remains insufficient. A comprehensive review of English-language literature on biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was performed. Articles on biportal endoscopic TLIF in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched using the terms "unilateral biportal endoscopy," "biportal endoscopic spine surgery," "transforaminal," and "lumbar interbody fusion" as well as their combinations. The clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic TLIF were analyzed and are summarized here. The biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion surgical techniques are then described. There are 3 biportal endoscopic TLIF techniques. In the available literature, the postoperative 1-year outcomes of biportal endoscopic TLIF were comparable to those of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive (MIS)-TLIF. Clinical parameters were significantly improved after biportal endoscopic TLIF. Compared to PLIF or MIS-TLIF, biportal endoscopic-TLIF may have the advantage of a faster recovery. Biportal endoscopic TLIF showed no inferiority in fusion rates compared to PLIF or MIS-TLIF. The postoperative complications were usually minor. The postoperative 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic TLIF were favorable compared to those of PLIF and MIS-TLIF. However, long-term outcomes should be investigated through prospective, randomized controlled trials in the future. This review article outlines the most current evidence-based medicine with regard to spinal surgery with an aim to introduce a new technique.

The Effect of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Program on Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease at Short-Term Follow-Up.

Purpose Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach has been increasingly frequently performed in recent years. However, neither studies of OLIF approach nor the researches of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgery are relatively rare. Here, our study is aimed at investigating the therapeutic effects of the application of OLIF compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approach combined with ERAS in dealing with this disorder at short-term follow-up. Material and Methods. Thirty-eight patients who undergone OLIF and forty patients who undergone TLIF with pedicle screws were included in our study. The concept of ERAS was applied in the perioperative period of the patients. Preoperative and postoperative laboratory test indexes of blood were examined and evaluated in all individuals. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Clinical Symptom Score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) were used in preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up. Satisfaction survey was also performed after surgery. Result The postoperative results of red blood count, C-reaction protein, D-dimer, and albumin were still within the reference ranges in most of the patients. It was shown that objective evaluations including VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score were significantly improved after OLIF and TLIF surgery. The follow-up of 6 months after surgery showed that VAS, ODI, and JOA were improved more in the OLIF group than that in the TLIF group. The overall satisfaction (satisfied and very satisfied) was 95% and 97.4% in the TLIF group and the OLIF group, respectively, and there was no difference between the two groups. Conclusion This study indicated that OLIF and TLIF approach were both rather effective therapies for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. The effect of OLIF procedure could be better than TLIF procedure in the early stage after 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.

Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007–2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.

P133. Does bone morphogenic protein (BMP) use reduce pseudoarthrosis rates in single-level TLIF surgeries?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) is a popular biologic product used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries to promote fusion and avoid the morbidity associated with iliac crest autograft. However, use of rhBMP-2 and its effect on pseudarthrosis rates in TLIFs remains unknown. PURPOSE To assess the rates of pseudarthrosis in open and MIS TLIF patients, with and without concurrent rhBMP-2 use. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective cohort study at a single academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE Included: 317 single level TLIF patients. Consisting of 157 open TLIF (OTLIF), 115 bilateral Wiltse MIS TLIF (WTLIF), and 45 hybrid midline MIS with percutaneous pedicle or cortical screws (MTLIF). OUTCOME MEASURES Clinical characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, surgical procedure, rates of pseudarthrosis diagnosis, and revision for pseudarthrosis. METHODS Patients ≥18 years old undergoing 1-level TLIF with minimum 1-year of clinical and radiographic follow up were included. Pseudarthrosis was determined using both radiographic and clinical evaluations. Differences between groups were assessed by ANOVA and chi squared analyses. Demographic and perioperative characteristics were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS The cohort included 317 patients (mean age 59.68±13.29, F 52.7%). There was no significant difference in gender, BMI, or smoking status among groups (all p>.05). WTLIF had the lowest EBL (ml) (192.16±177.11mL vs 302.73±246.51 vs 363.85±370.49, respectively p= CONCLUSIONS MP use did not reduce the rate of pseudarthrosis or the number of reoperations for pseudarthrosis in this cohort. No difference in pseudarthrosis rates between the three TLIF approaches was noted. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

271. Surgical technique and patient-reported outcomes in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Combined anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are two procedures recommended to improve clinical outcomes in adult patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. However, there is debate whether TLIF provides superior clinical outcomes to ALIF combined with PLDF, specifically regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare PROMs between combined ALIF-PLDF and TLIF techniques following lumbar spinal fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a single, high-volume academic medical center. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients who underwent lumbar fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis from 2014 to 2019 were included in the analysis. Surgery was indicated after failure of conservative treatment to address radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication. OUTCOME MEASURES Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at preoperative and postoperative clinical visits. Metrics recorded include the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS back) and leg pain (VAS leg), the Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (MCS-12) and Physical Component Score (PCS-12), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary measures included estimated blood loss (EBL) and hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS Patient and surgical characteristics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), number of levels decompressed and number of levels fused were recorded. Preoperative and final patient-reported outcome measures were obtained from an institutional query. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups based on surgical technique: combined anterior fusion with posterior stabilization (ALIF-PLDF) or anterior and posterior fusion through a posterior approach (TLIF). Multivariate linear regression was performed to correlate surgical approach and PROMs. RESULTS A total of 125 patients were included in final analysis, with 62 patients in the ALIF-PLDF group and 63 patients in the TLIF group. Patients undergoing ALIF-PLDF were more likely to be older (p=0.041) and have shorter LOS (p=0.009), while patients in the TLIF group had significantly more smoking history (p=0.007), more comorbid conditions (p=0.003), and higher number of levels decompressed (p=0.003). Patients in both the ALIF-PLDF group and the TLIF group had significant improvements in VAS back scores (p CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis treated with ALIF-PLDF approaches show significant improvements in all evaluated PROMs from initial preoperative visit to final follow-up, whereas similar patients treated with a TLIF approach have significant improvements in all PROMs except MCS-12. Our data further suggest that TLIF is more likely to be chosen for older, chronically ill patients, and those undergoing decompression at a higher number of levels. Despite these baseline differences, PROMs are similar between both fusion methods. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Does gender influence perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique? A prospective multicentric cohort study

ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the effect of gender on the rate of perioperative and early postoperative complications after mono segment lumbar spine fusion using open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique. Material and methodsWe conducted this prospective multicentric cohort study between January 2015 and February 2019. We included patients with degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, primary or recurrent disc prolapse, and spinal stenosis. After the failure of other conservative measures, all patients underwent mono segment interbody fusion using an open TLIF approach. Patients were classified based on their biologically assigned gender. We used the SPSS software version 25 for statistical analysis. ResultsWe included a total of 335 patients (147 male and 188 female). Of them, a percentage of 55.8% aged between 30 and 50 years. The level of surgery was L4-S1 in 87.1% of the included cases. The female patients had longer operative time, more blood loss, and longer hospital stays than the male patients 110.9 vs. 104.6, 471.6 ccs vs. 441.8 ccs, 3.31 days vs. 2.12 days; p = 0.01, p = 0.23, and p < 0.001, respectively. Of the 54 reported complications, 38 were with female patients (p = 0.02). The most-reported complications were as follows: dural tear in 16 cases (5 male and 11 female), traction neuritis in 15 cases (4 male and 11 female), and wound infection in 9 cases (3 male and 6 female). ConclusionOur study showed patients' gender directly correlated with their operative time, length of hospital stay, as well as the rate of complication, with the female variable showing a trend of notable increase on all aforementioned items after mono segment TLIF surgery.

A comparative study of clinical and radiological outcome between cages and morselized bone graft in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a hospital-based study

&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; Degenerative spinal diseases resulting in neuropathic backache are managed by nerve root decompression with instrumented interbody fusion is the treatment of choice for these groups of patients when not managed conservatively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; Hospital based, comparative, retrospective study was carried out in such patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with either cage with bone graft or stand-alone autologous morselized bone graft. The clinical and radiological outcomes were compared in these two methods of interbody fusion to assess any significant difference between them. A total of 20 patients with lumbar canal stenosis and degenerative grade 1/2 spondylolisthesis who failed conservative management were operated by TLIF approach and were evaluated for post-operative improvement in Oswestry disability index (ODI) and interbody fusion on imaging at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Vertebral level of surgical intervention, intra-operative blood loss and duration of surgery were recorded for each patient along with complications, if any.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; In our study there was no significant difference in the clinical and radiological outcome between the two methods of interbody fusion. Although the group which was offered morselized bone graft with cage showed slightly better clinical outcome at 6 months of follow up, both showed no significant difference in ODI at 1 year of follow up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/strong&gt; With this study, we can conclude that both the methods have similar clinical and radiological outcome with similar patient satisfaction and can be interchangeably employed for interbody fusion according to surgeon’s and patient’s preferences.&lt;/p&gt;

Numerical simulation of lateral and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, two minimally invasive surgical approaches

The present study aims to compare spinal stability after two different minimally invasive techniques, the lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approaches. Two nonlinear three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of the L4–L5 functional spinal unit (FSU) were subjected to the loads that usually act on the lumbar spine. Findings show that the LLIF approach yields better results for torsion load case, due to the larger surface area of the implant. For extension, flexion and lateral bending loads, the TLIF approach presents smaller displacements probably due to the anterior placement of the cage and to the smaller damaged area of the annulus fibrosus.

Optimal medial transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach with five extensive options: A simulated study on three-dimensional digital reconstructed images

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to use 3D digital lumbar models to investigate and simulate the optimal posterior operative approach for safe decompression and insertion of an interbody cage. MethodsThirty lumbar spine (L3-S1) computed tomography data are collected for 3D reconstruction. We cut medial half part of the superior facet and define the distance between the margin of the operative side of the spinous process and the medial margin of the cut superior facet as “medial distance (MD)”. Then, we cut the total superior facet and define the distance between the margin of the operative side of the spinous process and the lateral side of the junction of the pedicle and the vertebral body as “extend distance (ED)”. The feasible insertion of the current standard width size (10 mm and 12 mm) interbody cages was assessed by the two aforementioned MD and ED approaches. Besides the ED, we also simulate four other extensive options of lateral upper, lateral lower, vertical upper and lower and transmedian contralateral decompression on 3D digital lumbar model. ResultsThe MD increased from 13.48 ± 1.28 mm at L3/4 to 18.05 ± 1.43 mm at L5/S1, and the ED increased from 16.64 ± 1.34 mm at L3/4 to 21.12 ± 1.62 mm at L5/S1. To insert a 10-mm-wide cage, 16.7% (left) and 13.3% (right) of MD for L3/4 is not enough, 60.0% (left) and 46.7% (right) of MD for L3/4 is subsafe, 13.3% (left) and 16.7% (right) of MD for L4/5 is subsafe and all others are safe. To insert a 12-mm-wide cage, 76.7% (left) and 60.0% (right) of MD for L3/4 is not enough, 20.0% (left) and 30.0% (right) of MD for L3/4 is subsafe, 13.3%% (left) and 16.7% (right) of MD for L4/5 is not enough, 63.3% (left) and 56.7% (right) of MD for L4/5 is subsafe and 6.7% (left) and 10.0% (right) of MD for L5/S1 is subsafe, whereas 33.3%% (left) and 30.0% (right) of ED for L3/4 is subsafe, 3.3% (left) and 3.3% (right) of ED for L4/5 is subsafe and all others are safe. Besides the ED, on 3D models, four other extensive options could be simulated too and may need to be performed for different special individuals. ConclusionOur 3D digital image study provides a feasible optimal medial transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach with five extensive options on lower lumbar region. It can provide safe lumbar decompression and interbody fusion in most population. In addition, surgeons can choose the different extensive options for special individual conditions. The translational potential of this articleTransforminal lumbar interbody fusion is very common used for lumbar degenerative diseases. The optimal medial transforminal lumbar interbody fusion with five options provide a safe and precise approach for surgeons in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach.

A novel expandable lumbar interbody fusion cage has been developed which allows for a broad endplate footprint similar to an anterior lumbar interbody fusion; however, it is deployed from a minimally invasive transforaminal unilateral approach. The perceived benefit is a stable circumferential fusion from a single approach that maintains the anterior tension band of the anterior longitudinal ligament. The purpose of this biomechanics laboratory study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of an expandable lumbar interbody cage inserted using a transforaminal approach and deployed in situ compared to a traditional lumbar interbody cage inserted using an anterior approach (control device). Twelve cadaveric spine specimens (L1-5) were tested intact and after implantation of both the control and experimental devices in 2 (L2-3 and L3-4) segments of each specimen; the assignments of the control and experimental devices to these segments were alternated. Effect of supplemental pedicle screw-rod stabilization was also assessed. Moments were applied to the specimens in flexionextension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). The effect of physiologic preload on construct stability was evaluated in FE. Segmental motions were measured using an optoelectronic motion measurement system. The deployable expendable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage and control devices significantly reduced FE motion with and without compressive preload when compared to the intact condition (P < .05). Segmental motions in LB and AR were also significantly reduced with both devices (P < .05). Under no preload, the deployable expendable TLIF cage construct resulted in significantly smaller FE motion compared to the control cage construct (P < .01). Under all other testing modes (FE under 400N preload, LB, and AR), the postoperative motions of the 2 constructs did not differ statistically (P > .05). Adding bilateral pedicle screws resulted in further reduction of range of motion for all loading modes compared to intact condition, with no statistical difference between the 2 constructs (P > .05). The ability of the deployable expendable interbody cage in reducing segmental motions was equivalent to the control cage when used as a standalone construct and also when supplemented with bilateral pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. The larger footprint of the fully deployed TLIF cage combined with preservation of the anterior soft-tissue tension band may provide a better biomechanical fusion environment by combining the advantages of the traditional anterior lumbar interbody fusion and TLIF approaches.

Nerve Root and Lumbar Plexus Proximity to Different Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trajectories: A Cadaver Study.

Cadaver study. To investigate the safety of the extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach. Over the last decade the number of techniques available for lumbar interbody fusion has increased. Recent interest has developed in an extraforaminal approach to the intervertebral disc to reduce the morbidity associated with facetectomy. The safety of this extraforaminal corridor with regards to the exiting nerve root and lumbar plexus has yet to be assessed. With the cadaver prone, the C-arm was positioned over the disc of interest and aligned perpendicular to the superior endplate of the inferior vertebral body, with the superior articular process bisecting the available disc space. Three needles were passed into the disc and labeled medial, middle, and lateral. After needle placement, each nerve root and the lumbar plexus were dissected. The distance of each needle to these structures was measured and discectomy was performed to assess potential graft length from a transforaminal and extraforaminal approach. We performed the method on levels L1-L5 bilaterally on 2 cadavers, totaling 16 attempts for each needle position. The average distance to nerve of the medial approach (3.2±1.1 mm) was statistically greater than both the middle (1.1±1.4 mm) and lateral (-0.2±2.9 mm) approaches (P<0.0001 for both). The distance to plexus of the medial approach (14.3±6.2 mm) was greater than the middle (9.2±6.1 mm) approach and statistically greater than the lateral (5.2±5.6 mm) approach (P=0.001). There was a greater graft length available by the extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach (36.1±2.7 mm) than the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach (29.3±3.5 mm, P<0.0001). The safest trajectory was the medial, passing adjacent to the superior articular process. The close proximity, however, means that neuromonitoring and tubular dilators would be necessary to use this technique in a clinical setting. Level V.

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.

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.

To compare minimally invasive (MIS) and open techniques for MIS lumbar laminectomy, direct lateral and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries with respect to length of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), neurologic complications, perioperative transfusion, postoperative pain, postoperative narcotic use, and length of stay (LOS). A systematic review of previously published studies accessible through PubMed was performed. Only articles in English journals or published with English language translations were included. Level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed. Statistical data was calculated with analysis of variance with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. A total of 11 pertinent laminectomy studies, 20 direct lateral studies, and 27 TLIF studies were found. For laminectomy, MIS techniques resulted in a significantly longer length of surgery (177.5 min vs 129.0 min, P = 0.04), shorter LOS (4.3 d vs 5.3 d, P = 0.01) and less perioperative pain (visual analog scale: 16 ± 17 vs 34 ± 31, P = 0.04). There is evidence of decreased narcotic use for MIS patients (postoperative intravenous morphine use: 9.3 mg vs 42.8 mg), however this difference is of unknown significance. Direct lateral approaches have insufficient comparative data to establish relative perioperative outcomes. MIS TLIF had superior EBL (352 mL vs 580 mL, P < 0.0001) and LOS (7.7 d vs 10.4 d, P < 0.0001) and limited data to suggest lower perioperative pain. Based on perioperative outcomes data, MIS approach is superior to open approach for TLIF. For laminectomy, MIS and open approaches can be chosen based on surgeon preference. For lateral approaches, there is insufficient evidence to find non-inferior perioperative outcomes at this time.