Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Correction of Spondylolisthesis by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L4-5

  • Ko, Myeong Jin (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Seung Won (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Young Baeg (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital)
  • Received : 2018.06.28
  • Accepted : 2018.09.19
  • Published : 2019.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : In an aging society, the number of patients with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is increasing and there is an emerging need for fusion surgery. However, few studies have compared transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for the treatment of patients with DS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes between TLIF and LLIF in DS. Methods : We enrolled patients with symptomatic DS at L4-5 who underwent TLIF with open pedicle screw fixation (TLIF group, n=41) or minimally invasive LLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (LLIF group, n=39) and were followed-up for more than one year. Clinical (visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index) and radiological outcomes (spondylolisthesis rate, segmental sagittal angle [SSA], mean disc height [MDH], intervertebral foramen height [FH], cage subsidence, and fusion rate) were assessed. And we assessed the changes in radiological parameters between the postoperative and the last follow-up periods. Results : Preoperative radiological parameters were not significantly different between the two groups. LLIF was significantly superior to TLIF in immediate postoperative radiological results, including reduction of spondylolisthesis rate (3.8% and 7.2%), increase in MDH (13.9 mm and 10.3 mm) and FH (21.9 mm and 19.4 mm), and correction of SSA ($18.9^{\circ}$ and $15.6^{\circ}$) (p<0.01), and the changes were more stable from the postoperative period to the last follow-up (p<0.01). Cage subsidence was observed significantly less in LLIF (n=6) than TLIF (n=21). Fusion rate was not different between the two groups. The clinical outcomes did not differ significantly at any time point between the two groups. Complications were not statistically significant. However, TLIF showed chronic mechanical problems with screw loosening in four patients and LLIF showed temporary symptoms associated with the surgical approach, such as psoas and ileus muscle symptoms in three and two cases, respectively. Conclusion : LLIF was more effective than TLIF for spondylolisthesis reduction, likely due to the higher profile cage and ligamentotactic effect. In addition, LLIF showed mechanical stability of the reduction level by using a cage with a larger footprint. Therefore, LLIF should be considered a surgical option before TLIF for patients with unstable DS.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdu WA, Sacks OA, Tosteson ANA, Zhao W, Tosteson TD, Morgan TS, et al. : Long-term results of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43 : 1619-1630, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002682
  2. Ahlquist S, Park HY, Gatto J, Shamie AN, Park DY : Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion. Spine J 18 : 1999-2008, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.014
  3. Anand N, Cohen RB, Cohen J, Kahndehroo B, Kahwaty S, Baron E : the influence of lordotic cages on creating sagittal balance in the CMIS treatment of adult spinal deformity. Int J Spine Surg 11 : 23, 2017 https://doi.org/10.14444/4023
  4. 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
  5. Campbell PG, Nunley PD, Cavanaugh D, Kerr E, Utter PA, Frank K, et al. : Short-term outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion without decompression for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5. Neurosurg Focus 44 : E6, 2018
  6. Derman PB, Albert TJ : Interbody fusion techniques in the surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10 : 530-538, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9443-2
  7. Elowitz EH : Central and foraminal indirect decompression in MIS lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): video lecture. Eur Spine J 24 Suppl 3 : 449-450, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3946-6
  8. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD : Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(15 Suppl) : S26-S35, 2003
  9. Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler WE, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge SN, et al. : Laminectomy plus fusion versus laminectomy alone for lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 374 : 1424-1434, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1508788
  10. Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Alvi MA, Goncalves S, Bydon M : Outcomes following minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion for degenerative low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 167 : 122-128, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.02.020
  11. Guigui P, Ferrero E : Surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(1S) : S11-S20, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.06.022
  12. 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
  13. He LC, Wang YX, Gong JS, Griffith JF, Zeng XJ, Kwok AW, et al. : Prevalence and risk factors of lumbar spondylolisthesis in elderly Chinese men and women. Eur Radiol 24 : 441-448, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3041-5
  14. Hong TH, Cho KJ, Kim YT, Park JW, Seo BH, Kim NC : Does lordotic angle of cage determine lumbar lordosis in lumbar interbody fusion? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42 : E775-E780, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001957
  15. Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG; SOLAS Degenerative Study Group : Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: Part II: radiographic findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41 Suppl 8 : S133-S144, 2016
  16. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Rovsing H, Monrad H, Gebuhr P : Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an epidemiological perspective: the Copenhagen osteoarthritis study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 : 120-125, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000250979.12398.96
  17. Kuner EH, Kuner A, Schlickewei W, Mullaji AB : Ligamentotaxis with an internal spinal fixator for thoracolumbar fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76 : 107-112, 1994
  18. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS : Which approach is advantageous to preventing development of adjacent segment disease? Comparative analysis of 3 different lumbar interbody fusion techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4-5 spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 105 : 612-622, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.005
  19. Lee YS, Kim YB, Park SW, Chung C : Comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with direct lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological results. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 56 : 469-474, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2014.56.6.469
  20. Melikian R, Yoon ST, Kim JY, Park KY, Yoon C, Hutton W : Sagittal plane correction using the lateral transpsoas approach: a biomechanical study on the effect of cage angle and surgical technique on segmental lordosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41 : E1016-E1021, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001562
  21. Min JH, Jang JS, Kim SK, Maeng DH, Lee SH : The ligamentotactic effect on a herniated disc at the level adjacent to the anterior lumbar interbody fusion : report of two cases. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46 : 65-67, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2009.46.1.65
  22. Pawar AY, Hughes AP, Sama AA, Girardi FP, Lebl DR, Cammisa FP : A comparative study of lateral lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine J 9 : 668-674, 2015 https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2015.9.5.668
  23. Pereira EA, Farwana M, Lam KS : Extreme lateral interbody fusion relieves symptoms of spinal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis by indirect decompression in complex patients. J Clin Neurosci 35 : 56-61, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2016.09.010
  24. Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Sharan A, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Wang JC, et al. : Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 21 : 54-61, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14274
  25. Sembrano JN, Tohmeh A, Isaacs R; SOLAS Degenerative Study Group : Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: Part I: clinical findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41 Suppl 8 : S123-S132, 2016
  26. Sembrano JN, Yson SC, Horazdovsky RD, Santos ER, Polly DW Jr : Radiographic comparison of lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional fusion approaches: analysis of sagittal contour change. Int J Spine Surg 9 : 16, 2015 https://doi.org/10.14444/2016
  27. Tan GH, Goss BG, Thorpe PJ, Williams RP : CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion. Eur Spine J 16 : 1875-1881, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0376-0
  28. Uribe JS, Harris JE, Beckman JM, Turner AW, Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA : Finite element analysis of lordosis restoration with anterior longitudinal ligament release and lateral hyperlordotic cage placement. Eur Spine J 24 Suppl 3 : 420-426, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3872-7
  29. Wang YX, Deng M, Griffith JF, Kwok AW, Leung JC, Ahuja AT, et al. : Lumbar spondylolisthesis progression and de novo spondylolisthesis in elderly Chinese men and women: a year-4 follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41 : 1096-1103, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001507
  30. Xu DS, Bach K, Uribe JS : Minimally invasive anterior and lateral transpsoas approaches for closed reduction of grade II spondylolisthesis: initial clinical and radiographic experience. Neurosurg Focus 44 : E4, 2018

Cited by

  1. Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis? vol.85, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.11.040
  2. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.11, pp.7, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/life11070696
  3. Treatment of one-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with severe stenosis by oblique lateral interbody fusion: Clinical and radiological results after a minimal 1-year follow-up vol.26, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inat.2021.101321
  4. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion after reduction using the percutaneous pedicle screw system in the lateral position for Meyerding grade II spondylolisthesis: a preliminary report of a new lumbar recon vol.22, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03935-6