Literature DB >> 12234445

Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Larry T Khoo1, Sylvain Palmer, Daniel T Laich, Richard G Fessler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The wide exposure required for a standard posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) can cause unnecessary trauma to the lumbar musculoligamentous complex. By combining existing microendoscopic, percutaneous instrumentation and interbody technologies, a novel, minimally invasive, percutaneous PLIF technique was developed to minimize such iatrogenic tissue injury (MIP-PLIF).
METHODS: The MIP-PLIF technique was validated in three cadaveric torsos with six motion segments decompressed and fused. Preoperative variables measured from imaging included interpedicular distance, pedicular height and width, interspinous distance, lordosis, intervertebral height, Cobb angle, and foraminal height and volume. Using the METRx and MD spinal access systems (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN), bilateral laminotomies were performed using a hybrid of microsurgical and microendoscopic techniques. The intervertebral disc spaces were then distracted and prepared with the Tangent (Medtronic Sofamor Danek) interbody instruments. Either a 10 or 12 by 22 mm interbody graft was then placed. Using the Sextant (Medtronic Sofamor Danek) system, percutaneous pedicle screw-rod fixation of the motion segment was completed. We then applied MIP-PLIF in three patients.
RESULTS: For segments with preoperative intervertebral/foraminal height loss, MIP-PLIF was effective in restoring both heights in all cases. The amount of improvement (9.7 to 38% disc height increase; 7.7 to 29.9% foraminal height increase) varied directly with the size of the graft used and the original degree of disc and foraminal height loss. Segmental lordosis improved by 29% on average. Graft and screw placement was accurate in the cadavers, except for a single Grade 1 screw violation of one pedicle. The average operative time was 3.5 hours per level. In our three clinical cases, the MIP-PLIF procedure required a mean of 5.4 hours, estimated blood loss was 185 ml, and inpatient stay was 2.8 days, with no intravenous narcotic use after 2 days in any of the patients. All screw and graft placements were confirmed.
CONCLUSION: A complete PLIF procedure can be safely and effectively performed using minimally invasive techniques, thereby potentially reducing the pain and morbidity associated with standard open surgery. Prospective, randomized outcome studies will be required to validate the efficacy of this exciting new surgical technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12234445

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  48 in total

Review 1.  Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Authors:  Alex Alfieri; Roberto Gazzeri; Julian Prell; Christian Scheller; Jens Rachinger; Christian Strauss; Andreas Schwarz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.042

2.  CT accuracy of percutaneous versus open pedicle screw techniques: a series of 1609 screws.

Authors:  Todd M Chapman; Daniel J Blizzard; Christopher R Brown
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Angela R Starkweather; Linda Witek-Janusek; Russ P Nockels; Jonna Peterson; Herb L Mathews
Journal:  J Neurosci Nurs       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.230

4.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Tzinieris; Elefterios Tsiridis; Victor Kosmopoulos
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach.

Authors:  ShunWu Fan; ZhiJun Hu; FengDong Zhao; Xing Zhao; Yue Huang; Xiangqian Fang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  A minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine instabilities.

Authors:  C A Logroscino; L Proietti; E Pola; L Scaramuzzo; F C Tamburrelli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison of pedicle fixation by the Wiltse approach and the conventional posterior open approach for thoracolumbar fractures, using MRI, histological and electrophysiological analyses of the multifidus muscle.

Authors:  Liu Junhui; Pang Zhengbao; Xu Wenbin; Hao Lu; Li Shengyun; Fan Shunwu; Zhao Fengdong
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Minimal access to deep intracranial lesions using a serial dilatation technique: case-series and review of brain tubular retractor systems.

Authors:  Saleh A Almenawer; Louis Crevier; Naresh Murty; Amin Kassam; Kesava Reddy
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 3.042

9.  Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement.

Authors:  Ranjith Babu; Jong G Park; Ankit I Mehta; Tony Shan; Peter M Grossi; Christopher R Brown; William J Richardson; Robert E Isaacs; Carlos A Bagley; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Oren N Gottfried
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.654

10.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Alan T Villavicencio; Sigita Burneikiene; Cassandra M Roeca; E Lee Nelson; Alexander Mason
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2010-05-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.