Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Single Interbody Cage and a Tubular Retraction System : Technical Tips, and Perioperative, Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes

  • Lee, Chang-Kyu (Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Spine Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jeong-Yoon (Department of Neurosurgery, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Zhang, Ho-Yeol (Department of Neurosurgery, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2010.07.21
  • Accepted : 2010.09.17
  • Published : 2010.09.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : A minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLlF) has recently been introduced. However, MIS TLlF is a technically challenging procedure. The authors performed retrospective analysis about MIS TLlF using a single interbody cage. Methods : Twenty-eight consecutive patients were treated by MIS TLlF. Of these 28 patients, 20 patients were included in this retrospective study. Perioperative, clinical, and radiologic outcomes were assessed. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scores (VAS). Fusion rates and cross-sections of operated spinal canals were assessed by CT. Results : Twelve patients underwent MIS TLlF at one segment and 8 patients at two segments (L3/4: 4, L4/5: 17, L5/S1: 7). Operation time for a single segment was 131.7 min and for two segment was 201.4 min, and corresponding blood losses were 208.3 mL and 481.2 mL, respectively. ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved at 6 months postop (ODI from 30.32 to 15.54, VAS from 7.80 to 2.20, p = 0.001) Twenty-two segments (78.6%) achieved grade I fusion, 4 segments (14.3%) achieved grade II, 2 segments (7.1%) achieved grade III and 0 segments achieved grade IV at 12 months. Postoperatively at 12 months, spinal canal cross sectional areas at disc spaces significantly increased from 157.5 to $294.3\;mm^2$ (p = 0.012). Conclusion : MIS TLlF achieved good clinical outcomes and high fusion rates. Our findings show that MIS TLlF performed with a single Interbody cage and a tubular retractor system can be used as a standard MIS TLlF technique.

Keywords

References

  1. Blume HG, Rojas CH : Unilateral lumbar interbody fusion (posterior approach) utilizing dowel graft. J Neurol Orthop Surg 2 : 171-175, 1981
  2. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K : Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20 : 1410-1418, 1995
  3. Cole CD, McCall TD, Schmidt MH, Dailey AT : Comparison of low back fusion techniques : transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2 : 118-126, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8
  4. Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL, Hillard VH, Cerabona F, Das K : Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 5 : 534-539, 2006 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.5.6.534
  5. DiPaola CP, Molinari RW : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16 : 130-139, 2008
  6. German JW, Foley KT : Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : S52-S59, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000174501.53285.9d
  7. Harms JG, Jeszensky D : The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6 : 88-99, 1998
  8. Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Pellegrino A, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S, et al. : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29 : E65-E70, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000113034.74567.86
  9. Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG : Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51 : S166-S161, 2002
  10. Kim JS, Kim DH, Lee SH : Comparison between Instrumented Mini-TLIF and Instrumented Circumferential Fusion in Adult Low-Grade Lytic Spondylolisthesis : Can Mini-TLIF with PPF Replace Circumferential Fusion? J Korean Neurosurg Soc 45 : 74-80, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2009.45.2.74
  11. McAfee PC, Regan JR, Zdeblick T, Zuckerman J, Picetti GD 3rd, Heim S, et al. : The incidence of complications in endoscopic anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstructive surgery. A prospective multicenter study comprising the first 100 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20 : 1624-1632, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199507150-00012
  12. McDonnell MF, Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Puno RM, Johnson JR : Perioperative complications of anterior procedures on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78 : 839-847, 1996
  13. Park P, Foley KT : Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis : technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 25 : E16, 2008
  14. Park Y, Ha JW : Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 : 537-543, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000256473.49791.f4
  15. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB : Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 : 1385-1389, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be
  16. Ray CD : Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22 : 667-679; discussion 679-680, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199703150-00019
  17. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT : Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) : technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 Suppl : S1-S6, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0
  18. Xiao Y, Li F, Chen Q : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with one cage and excised local bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130 : 591-597, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0917-6

Cited by

  1. Radiographic Results of Minimally Invasive (MIS) Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LIF) Compared with Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion vol.10, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14245/kjs.2013.10.2.65
  2. Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion vol.35, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.2.focus12398
  3. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation: Comparison between Primary and Revision Surgery vol.2014, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/919248
  4. Minimally Invasive Unilateral vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Multi-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disorders vol.21, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.894890
  5. Acute Contralateral Radiculopathy after Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vol.58, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.4.350
  6. Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature vol.39, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.focus15278
  7. Novel combination of paraspinal keyhole surgery with a tubular retractor system leads to significant improvements in lumbar intraspinal extramedullary schwannomas vol.14, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7203
  8. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Rigid Interspinous Process Fixation: A Learning Curve Analysis of a Surgeon Team’s First 74 Cases vol.9, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1290
  9. Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results vol.43, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.focus17146
  10. Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results vol.43, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.focus17146
  11. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters vol.43, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.focus17197
  12. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters vol.43, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.focus17197
  13. Device solutions for a challenging spine surgery: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) vol.16, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2019.1601013
  14. Biomechanical implications of unilateral facetectomy, unilateral facetectomy plus partial contralateral facetectomy, and complete bilateral facetectomy in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody f vol.31, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.spine18942
  15. Biomechanical implications of unilateral facetectomy, unilateral facetectomy plus partial contralateral facetectomy, and complete bilateral facetectomy in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody f vol.31, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.spine18942
  16. Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide vol.10, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219882346
  17. The Technical Feasibility of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for The Unpredicted Complication Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Case Report vol.17, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2040174.087
  18. Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies vol.22, pp.7, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073638
  19. Expandable Versus Static Cages in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.151, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.090
  20. Comparison of outcomes between indirect decompression of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and MIS-TLIF in one single-level lumbar spondylosis vol.11, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92330-9