Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Direct Lumbar Interbody Fusion : Clinical and Radiological Results

  • Lee, Young Seok (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Young Baeg (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Seung Won (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Chan (Department of Neurosurgery, Dongguk University Gyeongju Hospital)
  • Received : 2014.03.26
  • Accepted : 2014.07.07
  • Published : 2014.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The use of direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) has gradually increased; however, no studies have directly compared DLIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We compared DLIF and TLIF on the basis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods : A retrospective review was performed on the medical records and radiographs of 98 and 81 patients who underwent TLIF and DLIF between January 2011 and December 2012. Clinical outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The preoperative and postoperative disc heights, segmental sagittal/coronal angles, and lumbar lordosis were measured on radiographs. Fusion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Results : DLIF was superior to TLIF regarding its ability to restore disc height, foraminal height, and coronal balance (p<0.001). As the extent of surgical level increased, DLIF displayed significant advantages over TLIF considering the operative time and EBL. However, fusion rates at 12 months post-operation were lower for DLIF (87.8%) than for TLIF (98.1%) (p=0.007). The changes of VAS and ODI between the TLIF and DLIF were not significantly different (p>0.05). Conclusion : Both DLIF and TLIF are less invasive and thus good surgical options for treating degenerative lumber diseases. DLIF has higher potential in increasing neural foramina and correcting coronal balance, and involves a shorter operative time and reduced EBL, in comparison with TLIF. However, DLIF displayed a lower fusion rate than TLIF, and caused complications related to the transpsoas approach.

Keywords

References

  1. Acosta FL, Liu J, Slimack N, Moller D, Fessler R, Koski T : Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults : a radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine 15 : 92-96, 2011 https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.3.SPINE10425
  2. Baker JK, Reardon PR, Reardon MJ, Heggeness MH : Vascular injury in anterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18 : 2227-2230, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199311000-00014
  3. 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 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199506020-00014
  4. Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD, Yu Y, Wang MY : An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 15 : 11-18, 2011 https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.2.SPINE10374
  5. 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
  6. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS : Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 28 : E8, 2010
  7. Glassman SD, Carreon L, Djurasovic M, Campbell MJ, Puno RM, Johnson JR, et al. : Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion with INFUSE bone graft. Spine J 7 : 44-49, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.06.381
  8. Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U : Transforaminal lumbar 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
  9. 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
  10. Houten JK, Alexandre LC, Nasser R, Wollowick AL : Nerve injury during the transpsoas approach for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 15 : 280-284, 2011 https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.4.SPINE1127
  11. Houten JK, Post NH, Dryer JW, Errico TJ : Clinical and radiographically/neuroimaging documented outcome in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20 : E8, 2006 https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2006.20.4.5
  12. Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM : A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis : perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl) : S322-S330, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022e04
  13. Jiang SD, Chen JW, Jiang LS : Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion : anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132 : 1259-1266, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1546-z
  14. Johnson RD, Valore A, Villaminar A, Comisso M, Balsano M : Pelvic parameters of sagittal balance in extreme lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disc disease. J Clin Neurosci 20 : 576-581, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2012.05.032
  15. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H : Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 941-944, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199604150-00007
  16. Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Matsui H, et al. : Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 2683-2688, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199611150-00019
  17. Kepler CK, Huang RC, Sharma AK, Meredith DS, Metitiri O, Sama AA, et al. : Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 4 : 71-75, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7861.2012.00175.x
  18. Kepler CK, Sharma AK, Huang RC, Meredith DS, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. : Indirect foraminal decompression after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 16 : 329-333, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.1.SPINE11528
  19. Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J : Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions : early complication profile. J Spinal Disord Tech 22 : 34-37, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181679b8a
  20. Le TV, Burkett CJ, Deukmedjian AR, Uribe JS : Postoperative lumbar plexus injury after lumbar retroperitoneal transpsoas minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 : E13-E20, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318278417c
  21. Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Kim YT, Lee HS : Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgical approach : a systematic review of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Surg 3 : 39-47, 2011 https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2011.3.1.39
  22. McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Geis WP, Fedder IL : Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. Emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 : 1476-1484, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199807010-00009
  23. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L : A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (26 Suppl) : S331-S337, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022db0
  24. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR : Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) : a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6 : 435-443, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.012
  25. Park JS, Kim YB, Hong HJ, Hwang SN : Comparison between posterior and transforaminal approaches for lumbar interbody fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 37 : 340-344, 2005
  26. Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 : 337-346, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000166642.69189.45
  27. Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L, Jacobs GB : Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 91 (1 Suppl) : 60-64, 1999
  28. Sasso RC, Kenneth Burkus J, LeHuec JC : Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion : transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal exposure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 1023-1026, 2003
  29. Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM : Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 22 : 1741-1749, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z
  30. Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS : Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 28 : E7, 2010
  31. Zhou ZJ, Zhao FD, Fang XQ, Zhao X, Fan SW : Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 15 : 295-310, 2011 https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.4.SPINE10330

Cited by

  1. Acute Contralateral Radiculopathy after Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vol.58, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2015.58.4.350
  2. Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Combination of Hydroxyapatite and Demineralized Bone Matrix and Autografts for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis vol.11, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.5.706
  3. Do intraoperative radiographs predict final lumbar sagittal alignment following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? vol.28, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.8.spine161231
  4. Do intraoperative radiographs predict final lumbar sagittal alignment following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? vol.28, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.8.spine161231
  5. Outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease in patients under or over 65 years of age vol.13, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0740-2
  6. Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches vol.30, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.9.spine18800
  7. Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches vol.30, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.9.spine18800
  8. Comparison of Segmental Lordosis and Global Spinopelvic Alignment After Single-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion vol.126, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.106
  9. Correction of Spondylolisthesis by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L4-5 vol.62, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0143
  10. Contralateral radiculopathy after unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: causes and prevention vol.49, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605211037475