Literature DB >> 15672243

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results.

Lars Hackenberg1, Henry Halm, Viola Bullmann, Volker Vieth, Marc Schneider, Ulf Liljenqvist.   

Abstract

The unilateral transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative to the anterior (ALIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with pedicle screw instrumentation is gaining in popularity. At present, a prospective study using a standardized tool for outcome measurement after the transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with a follow-up of at least 3 years is not available in the current literature, although there have been reports on specific complications and cost efficiency. Therefore, a study of TLIF was undertaken. Fifty-two consecutive patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years were included, with the mean follow-up being 46 months (36--64). The indications were 22 isthmic spondylolistheses and 30 degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Thirty-nine cases were one-level, 11 cases were two-level, and two cases were three-level fusions. The pain and disability status was prospectively evaluated by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The status of bony fusion was evaluated by an independent radiologist using anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs. The operation time averaged 173 min for one-level and 238 min for multiple-level fusions. Average blood loss was 485 ml for one-level and 560 ml for multiple-level fusions. There were four serious complications registered: a deep infection, a persistent radiculopathy, a symptomatic contralateral disc herniation and a pseudarthrosis with loosening of the implants. Overall, the pain relief in the VAS and the reduction of the ODI was significant (P<0.05) at follow-up. The fusion rate was 89%. At the latest follow-up, significant differences of the ODI were neither found between isthmic spondylolistheses and degenerative diseases, nor between one- and multiple-level fusions. In conclusion, the TLIF technique has comparable results to other interbody fusions, such as the PLIF and ALIF techniques. The potential advantages of the TLIF technique include avoidance of the anterior approach and reduction of the approach related posterior trauma to the spinal canal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15672243      PMCID: PMC3489237          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  39 in total

1.  [Not Available].

Authors:  J G Harms; D Jeszenszky
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.154

2.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee; M L Lewis; L M Quinn; J M Persenaire
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Spine update lumbar interbody cages.

Authors:  B K Weiner; R D Fraser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions.

Authors:  C D Ray
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Retrograde ejaculation after retroperitoneal lower lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  F B Christensen; C E Bünger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Vascular injury in anterior lumbar surgery.

Authors:  J K Baker; P R Reardon; M J Reardon; M H Heggeness
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Interbody fusion and instrumentation.

Authors:  P Enker; A D Steffee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Anterior lumbar fusion improves discogenic pain at levels of prior posterolateral fusion.

Authors:  W T Barrick; J A Schofferman; J B Reynolds; N D Goldthwaite; M McKeehen; D Keaney; A H White
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis.

Authors:  T S Whitecloud ; W W Roesch; J E Ricciardi
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2001-04

10.  Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations.

Authors:  V M Taylor; R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; W Kreuter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  74 in total

1.  Influence of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures on spinal and pelvic parameters of sagittal balance.

Authors:  Mourad Ould-Slimane; Thibaut Lenoir; Cyril Dauzac; Ludovic Rillardon; Etienne Hoffmann; Pierre Guigui; Brice Ilharreborde
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Comparison of SpineJet XL and Conventional Instrumentation for Disk Space Preparation in Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Han-Yong Huh; Cheol Ji; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-05-31

3.  An RCT study comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of PLIF or TLIF after instrumented reduction in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Er-Zhu Yang; Jian-Guang Xu; Xiao-Kang Liu; Gen-Yang Jin; Wenzhen Xiao; Bing-Fang Zeng; Xiao-Feng Lian
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Single transverse-orientation cage via MIS-TLIF approach for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a technical note.

Authors:  Shan-Jin Wang; Ying-Chao Han; Fu-Min Pan; Bin Ma; Jun Tan
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

5.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Wale A R Sulaiman; Manish Singh
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

6.  Is the lateral transpsoas approach feasible for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis?

Authors:  Carlos Castro; Leonardo Oliveira; Rodrigo Amaral; Luis Marchi; Luiz Pimenta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Visceral, vascular, and wound complications following over 13,000 lateral interbody fusions: a survey study and literature review.

Authors:  Juan S Uribe; Armen R Deukmedjian
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Clinical outcomes and sagittal alignment of single-level unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a 4 to 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Yun Liang; Weibin Shi; Chun Jiang; Zixian Chen; Fubing Liu; Zhenzhou Feng; Xiaoxing Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Post-discectomy syndrome treated with lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Thomas Niemeyer; Henry Halm; Lars Hackenberg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Albert Schulze Bövingloh
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study.

Authors:  Kai Zhang; Wei Sun; Chang-qing Zhao; Hua Li; Wei Ding; You-zhuan Xie; Xiao-jiang Sun; Jie Zhao
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.