Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

  • 제47권5호
  • /
  • Pages.370-376
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2005-3711(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-7876(eISSN)
대한신경외과학회 (The Korean Neurosurgical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL and Conventional Instrumentation for Disk Space Preparation in Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Huh, Han-Yong (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Paul's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Ji, Cheol (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Paul's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Ryu, Kyeong-Sik (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Chun-Kun (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 투고 : 2009.11.27
  • 심사 : 2010.05.10
  • 발행 : 2010.05.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective : Although unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is widely used because of its benefits, it does have some technical limitations. Removal of disk material and endplate cartilage is difficult, but essential, for proper fusion in unilateral surgery, leading to debate regarding the surgery's limitations in removing the disk material on the contralateral side. Therefore, authors have conducted a randomized, comparative cadaver study in order to evaluate the efficiency of the surgery when using conventional instruments in the preparation of the disk space and when using the recently developed high-pressure water jet system, SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL. Methods : Two spine surgeons performed diskectomies and disk preparations for TLIF in 20 lumbar disks. All cadaver/surgeon/level allocations for preparation using the SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL (HydroCision Inc., Boston, MA, USA) or conventional tools were randomized. All assessments were performed by an independent spine surgeon who was unaware of the randomizations. The authors measured the areas (cm2) and calculated the proportion (%) of the disk surfaces. The duration of the disk preparation and number of instrument insertions and withdrawals required to complete the disk preparation were recorded for all procedures. Results : The proportion of the area of removed disk tissue versus that of potentially removable disk tissue, the proportion of the area of removed endplate cartilage, and the area of removed disk tissue in the contralateral posterior portion showed 74.5 ${\pm}$ 17.2%, 18.5 ${\pm}$ 12.03%, and 67.55 ${\pm}$ 16.10%, respectively, when the SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL was used, and 52.6 ${\pm}$ 16.9%, 22.8 ${\pm}$ 17.84%, and 51.64 ${\pm}$ 19.63%, respectively, when conventional instrumentations were used. The results also showed that when the SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL was used, the proportion of the area of removed disk tissue versus that of potentially removable disk tissue and the area of removed disk tissue in the contralateral posterior portion were statistically significantly high (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, respectively). Also, compared to conventional instrumentations, the duration required to complete disk space preparation was shorter, and the frequency of instrument use and the numbers of insertions/withdrawals were lower when the SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL was used. Conclusion : The present study demonstrates that hydrosurgery using the SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL unit allows for the preparation of a greater portion of disk space and that it is less traumatic and allows for more precise endplate preparation without damage to the bony endplate. Furthermore, the SpineJet$^{TM}$ XL appears to provide tangible benefits in terms of disk space preparation for graft placement, particularly when using the unilateral TLIF approach.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Blume HG : Unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion: simplified dowel technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res : 75-84, 1985
  2. Cloward RB : The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10 : 154-168, 1953 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
  3. Enker P, Steffee AD : Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 90-101, 1994
  4. Evans JH : Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res : 38-46, 1985
  5. Hackenberg L, Haim H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U : Transforaminallumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14: 551-558, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1
  6. Harms J, Rolinger H : [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses : dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl).] Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120: 343-347,1982 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1051624
  7. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covingron LA : Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26 : 567- 571,2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023
  8. Jang JS, Lee SH : Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 3: 218-223, 2005 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.3.0218
  9. Javernick MA, Kuklo TR, Polly DW Jr : Transforaminallumbar interbody fusion : unilateral versus bilateral disk removal--an in vivo study. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 32 : 344-348; discussion 348, 2003
  10. Klemme WR, Owens BD, Dhawan A, Zeidman S, Polly DW Jr : Lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion : threaded devices alone versus vertical cages plus posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26 : 534-537, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200103010-00017
  11. Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Rdat Res : 154-168, 1983
  12. Lowe TG, TaherniaAD, O'Brien MF, Smith DA: Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) : indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15 : 31-38, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200202000-00005
  13. Polly DW Jr, Klemme WR, Cunningham BW, Burnette JB, Haggerty CJ, Oda I : The biomechanical significanace of anterior column support in a simulated single-level spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord 13 : 58-62, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200002000-00012
  14. Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV: Transforaminallumbar interbody fusion : technique, complication and early results. Neurosurg 48 : 569-574; discussion 574-575, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-200103000-00022
  15. Stonecipher T, Wright S : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with facet-screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14: 468-471, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198904000-00026
  16. Sukovich W : Progress, challenges and opportunities in disc space preparation for lumbar interbody fusion. Internet J Spine Surg 1 : 2005
  17. Sukovich W, Hardenbrook M, Fox B, Manos R, Weistroffer J : Lumbar interbody fusion : the significance of endplate preparation. Poster presented at the North American Spine Society (NASS) 20th annual meeting, September 27-October l, 2005, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  18. Sukovich W, Hardenbrook M, Taddonio R, Fox B : Hydrosurgical disc preparation for unilateral transforaminallumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) : experimental results in cadavers. Poster presented at Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons, December 12-16, 2005, Kissimmee, Florida.
  19. Sukovich W, Weistroffer JK, Manos RE : Transforaminallumbar interbody fusion : minimally invasive versus open disc excision and endplate preparation. Paper presented at Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons, December, 2004, Vail, Colorado.
  20. Taneichi H, Suda K, Kajino T, Matsumura A, Moridaira H, Kaneda K: Unilateral transforaminallumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level : clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 4: 198-205,2006 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.4.3.198
  21. Truchly G, Thompson WA: Posterolateral fusion of the lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 44: 505-512, 1962 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-196244030-00008
  22. Voor MJ, Mehta S, Wang M, Zhang YM, Mahan J, Johnson JR : Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord 11 : 328-334, 1998
  23. Whitecloud TS 3rd, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE : Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine : a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 14 : 100-103, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200104000-00002

피인용 문헌

  1. Randomized clinical trial comparing lumbar percutaneous hydrodiscectomy with lumbar open microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc protrusions and herniations vol.71, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(05)06
  2. An in vitro study examining a novel suction curette device for lumbar discectomy compared with standard manual discectomy vol.26, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.spine16283
  3. An in vitro study examining a novel suction curette device for lumbar discectomy compared with standard manual discectomy vol.26, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.spine16283