Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and spondylolisthesis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis a.14 (1)
Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 2024
Background: One of the most frequent etiologies for spinal surgery is unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis (ULS). To decompress affected structures while maintaining or restoring stability through fusion, surgeons utilize a variety of procedures. When paired with interbody fusion, posterior fusion is most applied, resulting in greater fusion rates. The two most popular techniques for implementing spinal fusion are posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). As a result, these two procedures have been assessed formally. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent interbody fusion for lumbar stenosis through PLIF and minimally invasive (MI)-TLIF was performed. The patients were followed up for 24 months and fusion rates, Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) alongside the MacNab clinical outcome score, were assessed. The Bridwell interbody fusion grading system was used to evaluate fusion rates in computed tomography (CT). Results: Operations were performed in 60 cases where patients suffered from ULS. PLIF was performed on 33 patients (55%) (14 males and 19 females) and 27 patients (45%) (11 males and 16 females) who underwent MI-TLIF. In 87% of our respective cohort, either the L4-5 or the L5-S1 level was operated on. Overall fusion rates were comparable between the two groups; however, the TLIF group improved more in terms of VAS, ODI, and MacNab scores. On average, MI-TLIF surgery was longer and resulted in reduced blood loss. MI-TLIF patients were more mobile than PLIF patients postoperatively. Conclusion: With well-established adequate results in the literature, TLIF offers benefits over other methods used for interbody lumbar fusion in ULS or other diseases of the spine. However, MI-TLIF may procure more advantageous for patients if MI methods are implemented. In this instance, TLIF outperformed PLIF due to shorter operating times, less blood loss, faster ODI recovery, better MacNab scores, and a greater decline in VAS pain ratings.
Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
International Journal of Neurosurgery, 2020
This study aims to assess the difference between minimal invasive TLIF surgery and conventional TLIF surgery in cases of lytic spondylolisthesis, as regards pain, disability, hospital stay and complications. Lytic Spondylolisthesis patients may require fusion of one or more spinal segments to treat their condition adequately. The chances of achieving a successful lumbar spinal fusion has increased. TLIF technique is gradually being accepted in these cases and widely used by most spine surgeons. Minimal invasive TLIF is a recent trend for spinal fusion. This is a prospective randomized comparative study conducted from March 2016 to December 2018 included forty patients with low grade lytic spondylolisthesis that underwent surgeries. Twenty patients underwent MI-TLIF through percutaneous posterior lumbar pedicular screw fixation, microscopic minimally invasive transformational discectomy and interbody cage fusion (patients group "A") and another twenty patients underwent traditional open posterior lumbar pedicular screw fixation and TLIF (control group "B"). In our results, both surgical techniques showed improvement in pain and function within 12 months (follow up period), but group A showed statistically significant improvement in pain and function in the 1 st three months. Regarding blood loss, need for transfusion and hospital stay, group A showed statistically significant better results. As a conclusion, minimally invasive TLIF is a better option in surgical management of spondylolisthesis especially in the early postoperative period.
Journal of Spine Surgery, 2017
Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has become one of the standard techniques for approaching ipsilateral decompression, anterior column fusion, and posterior stabilization. This procedure is usually accompanied by the placement of bilateral transpedicular screws in the corresponding segment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral screw fixation compared with bilateral fixation in patients diagnosed with low-grade symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent an MI-TLIF technique. Methods: A prospective and comparative study was performed in 67 patients with grade 1 symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The sample was allocated on both unilateral fixation group (n=33) and bilateral fixation group (n=34). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Changes over time and differences between the groups were analyzed. Statistical analyses included: Friedman test, Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney's U. A two-tailed P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: During 1-year of evaluation there were no significant clinical differences between both groups. Conclusions: Patients with grade 1 symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with MI-TLIF with unilateral screw fixation had similar clinical results than those treated with bilateral fixation at 12 months postoperatively.
Journal of Orthopaedics, 2018
Introduction: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common cause of morbidity in middle aged individuals. Spinal fusion with instrumentation has become the gold standard for lumbar segmental instability. Studies which correlate the improvement in radiology postoperatively with functional outcome show contrasting reports. This study is aimed at finding the correlation between clinical and radiological outcomes after surgery with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Methods: A retrospective study in 35 patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in a period of 1 year was done. Preoperative pain (VAS Score), functional ability (ODI), radiological parameters (slip angle, slip grade, disc height, foraminal height, lumbar lordosis) were compared with postoperative recordings at the last followup. Functional improvement (Macnab's criteria) and fusion (Lee's fusion criteria) were assessed. Statistical analysis was done with student's paired t-test and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: VAS score, ODI improved from 8 to 2 and 70 to 15 respectively. Slip angle improved from 23°to 5°on an average. 80% patients showed fusion and 85% showed good clinical outcome at 1 year followup. Analyzing with Pearson correlation coefficient showed no significant relation between pain scores and radiological parameters. But there was statistically significant relation between radiological fusion and the final clinical outcome. Conclusion: TLIF produces spinal fusion in most individuals. Strong spinal fusion is essential for good clinical outcome in spondylolisthesis patients who undergo TLIF. Reduction in slip is not necessary for all patients with listhesis.
Journal of Neurological Disorders, 2015
Objectives: The present study aims to assess the results of extended Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for a two-surgeon, single institution series. Methods: 57 cases of extended TLIF with bilateral decompression were performed. Pain, ASIA scores, patient demographics, BMI, perioperative indices and radiographic measurements were recorded and analysed. Results: 57 operations were performed between February 2011 and January 2014, there were 38 female and 19 male patients. Mean patient age was 62.86 years, mean BMI was 30.31 kg/m2. In 49 patients spondylolisthesis was the primary indication. The mean intraoperative time was 284.65 min, this decreased as the series progressed. The median length of stay was 5 days, ranging from 2 to 9 days. The surgical complication rate was 22.8%. Two patients died from cardiopulmonary complications. 78.9% of the cohort had single-level TLIF, L4/5 was the most commonly fused level. Significant pain reduction was achieved from a mean Pre-operative VAS of 8.28 1.39 to post-op VAS of 1.501.05 at 12 months. No patients deteriorated neurologically. Spondylolisthesis was significantly corrected from a pre-operative mean of 6.82 mm to 2.80 mm post-operatively. There is a learning curve associated with the procedure. Discussion: TLIF with bilateral facet joint removal and decompression appeared to be a safe and effective alternative to other fusion techniques, and is comparable to other published case series. Stabilisation and correction of spinal deformity reduces pain, aids neurologic recovery and improves quality of life.
Bratislavské lekárske listy, 2021
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a relatively common cause of low back and lower extremity pain. The most common type, degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), is a disease that causes stenosis of the spinal canal. Two surgical methods of treatment are widely accepted, namely posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, the fi ndings of 333 consecutive DLS patients who underwent surgical decompression with instrumented fusion were analyzed in a prospective study at the
Asian Spine Journal
Study DesignRetrospective review of prospective registry data.PurposeTo determine 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level instrumented minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in patients with neurogenic symptoms secondary to spondylolisthesis.Overview of LiteratureMIS-TLIF and open approaches have been shown to yield comparable outcomes. This is the first study to assess MIS-TLIF outcomes using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criterion.MethodsThe outcomes of 56 patients treated by a single surgeon, including the Oswestry disability index (ODI), neurogenic symptom score, short-form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain (BP), and leg pain (LP), were collected prospectively for up to 5 years postoperatively. Radiological outcomes included adjacent segment degeneration, fusion, cage subsidence, and screw loosening rates.ResultsOur patients were predominantly female (71.4%) and had a ...
Neurosurgical Focus, 2023
OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively. METHODS The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values. RESULTS The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis have not been validated in many prospective randomized trials. AIM: We aimed to validate the safety and efficacy of TLIF and PLIF surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis using the clinical, radiographic, and cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: The data of surgically treated single-level spondylolisthesis patients were randomized prospectively into two groups. The groups were compared regarding demographics, perioperative complications, hospital stay, total expenditure, fusion rate, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication scale, and Odom’s criteria). A review of literature was done to compare the outcomes with the ones from higher-income nations. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent prospective randomization. The improvement in the clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up showed impr...