Literature DB >> 15767888

The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases.

Paul C McAfee1, John G DeVine, Christopher D Chaput, Brad G Prybis, Ira L Fedder, Bryan W Cunningham, Dennis J Farrell, Samuel J Hess, Franco E Vigna.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This study retrospectively examines outcomes of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterior fixation using anterior carbon fiber cages and 360 degrees fusion in spondylolisthesis.
OBJECTIVES: The goals were to examine the outcomes and perioperative complications of using anterior column support in the treatment of various types of spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2000, Brantigan et al reported the Brantigan interbody fusion cage used as a posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the US IDE clinical trial. This is the largest series to date of TLIF cages specifically used in the treatment of spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: A comprehensive long-term follow-up study was conducted to evaluate the fusion success and morbidity following implantation with an anterior column support and posterior pedicle screw fixation. The 120 patients with spondylolisthesis were comprised by 11 cases, dysplastic; 58 cases, degenerative; and 51 cases, isthmic-acquired spondylolisthesis. Anterior column support was either a rectangular carbon fiber/PEEK device or a cylindrical carbon fiber/PEEK device. Twenty-eight cases (23%) were revisions.
RESULTS: There were no pseudarthrosis, instrumentation failures, or significant subsidence at the TLIF level. The disc space height and foraminal height were restored as part of the surgical procedure. Disc height, as measured from the posterior edge of the superior vertebral body, increased from a mean of 5.6 mm before surgery to a mean of 9.3 mm after surgery. Although reduction of the slip was not the primary goal during the surgical procedure for the 120 cases with spondylolisthesis (isthmic-acquired = 51, degenerative = 58, and dysplastic = 11), the 23% slip reduction achieved at surgery was maintained at follow-up. Mean operative time was 143 +/- 33 minutes (range, 70-255 minutes) for all cases. Mean blood loss was 724 +/- 431 mL (range, 300-2,500 mL). There were seven incidental durotomies and three infections. One patient with Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis required revision of the carbon fiber cage for posterior migration secondary to a traumatic event 3 months after surgery. Fusion success was 98% using the criteriaof Lenke for the posterior fusion and Brantigan and Steffee for the TLIF graft incorporation.
CONCLUSIONS: Interbody cages in spondylolisthesis are useful to increase neuroforaminal height, to facilitate reduction, and to improve the chances of achieving a successful 360 degrees fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15767888     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000155578.62680.dd

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  37 in total

1.  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

2.  Surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Dieter Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Low grade lytic spondylolisthesis L4/L5 treated with PLIF.

Authors:  Othmar Schwarzenbach
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jan William Duncan; Richard Anthony Bailey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Complications in TLIF spondylodesis-do they influence the outcome for patients? A prospective two-center study.

Authors:  Philipp Poppenborg; Ulf Liljenqvist; Georg Gosheger; Albert Schulze Boevingloh; Lukas Lampe; Sebastian Schmeil; Tobias L Schulte; Tobias Lange
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan; Greg Malham; Kevin Seex; Prashanth J Rao
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

7.  Biomechanical effects of direction-changeable cage positions on lumbar spine: a finite element study.

Authors:  Haiping Zhang; Dingjun Hao; Honghui Sun; Sinmin He; Biao Wang; Huimin Hu; Yongyuan Zhang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 4.060

8.  Expandable Interbody Fusion Cages: An Editorial on the Surgeon's Perspective on Recent Technological Advances and Their Biomechanical Implications.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Lisa Ferrara; Boyle Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

Review 9.  Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Peter B Derman; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

10.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kristian Høy; Cody Bünger; Bent Niederman; Peter Helmig; Ebbe Stender Hansen; Haisheng Li; Thomas Andersen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.