eISSN: 2299-0054
ISSN: 1895-4588
Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
Current issue Archive Videoforum Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank


4/2018
vol. 13
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for dual-segment lower lumbar degenerative disease

Wei Wang, Zhangfu Wang, Zhenghua Hong, Haixiao Chen

Videosurgery Miniinv 2018; 13 (4): 525–532
Online publish date: 2018/06/01
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been widely used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases. The PIPELINE Access minimally invasive system allows reduction of the trauma to the patient during TLIF.

Aim
To present our preliminary experience with the minimally invasive TLIF (mTLIF) technique performed on the first 7 patients with dual-segment lower lumbar degenerative disease (DS-LLDD).

Material and methods
A retrospective analysis was performed on the first 7 patients with spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis operated upon between January 2011 and June 2013. All 7 patients underwent fusion at the L4-S1 level.

Results
The pedicle screws entered the spinal canal in 2 patients. No other intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred with the mTLIF technique. Improvement of the leading symptom in the early postoperative period (sciatica: 7/7, low back pain: 7/7) was achieved in all patients. The mean improvements in the visual analog scale scores for low back and leg pain were 5.1 and 5.7 points, respectively. The mean Oswestry Disability Index scores were 52% (range: 20–74%) before surgery and 27% (range: 10–48%) at the 3-month follow-up (mean improvement: 25%). The average hospital stay was reduced to 6 days.

Conclusions
Our initial experience suggests that the mTLIF technique is a viable method for treating DS-LLDD. Nevertheless, longer observations on larger groups of patients are needed to reliably evaluate the safety of the method and sustainability of the results.

keywords:

pedicle screw, minimally invasive spine surgery, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, lumbar degenerative disease

references:
Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982; 120: 343-7.
Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 551-8.
Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18: 337-46.
Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Nelson EL, et al. Safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and intervertebral recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 436-43.
Crandall DG, Revella J, Patterson J, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with rhBMP-2 in spinal deformity, spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease – Part 1: Large series diagnosis related outcomes and complications with 2- to 9-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 1128-36.
Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: S26-35.
Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 2049-55.
Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, et al. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 1727-37.
Houten JK, Post NH, Dryer JW, et al. Clinical and radiographically/neuroimaging documented outcome in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20: E8.
Khan IS, Sonig A, Thakur JD, et al. Perioperative complications in patients undergoing open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as a revision surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18: 260-4.
Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20: E6.
Min SH, Yoo JS. The clinical and radiological outcomes of multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2013; 22: 1164-72.
Zairi F, Arikat A, Allaoui M, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison between open and mini-open approaches with two years follow-up. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2013; 74: 131-5.
Wu H, Yu WD, Jiang R, et al. Treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis using a combination of microendoscopic discectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Exp Ther Med 2013; 5: 567-71.
Saetia K, Phankhongsab A, Kuansongtham V, et al. Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Med Assoc Thai 2013; 96: 41-6.
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg 2014; 82: 230-8.
Lau D, Ziewacz J, Park P. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity. J Clin Neurosci 2013; 20: 80-3.
Lau D, Terman SW, Patel R, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 18: 356-61.
Satoh I, Yonenobu K, Hosono N, et al. Indication of posterior lumbar int-erbody fusion for lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006; 19: 104-8.
Rosonberg WS, Mummaneni PV. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 2001; 48: 569-75.
Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 567-71.
Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2012; 21: 2265-70.
Kettler A, Schmoelz W, Kast E, et al. In vitro stabilizing effect of transfo-raminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 665-70.
Habib A, Smith ZA, Lawton CD, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge. Minim Invasive Surg 2012; 2012: 657342.
Zhi-jian S, Yu Z, Giu-xing Q, et al. Efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism following lumbar decompression surgery. Chin Med Sci J 2011; 26: 221-6.
Parker SL, Lerner J, McGirt MJ. Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review. Prof Case Manag 2012; 17: 229-35.
  
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe