Literature DB >> 18458586

Position of interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: effect on 3-dimensional stability and sagittal lumbar contour.

Antonio A Faundez1, Amir A Mehbod, Chunhui Wu, Wentien Wu, Avraam Ploumis, Ensor E Transfeldt.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Biomechanical study.
OBJECTIVE: To test 2 different intervertebral positions of a semilunar cage and their effects on 3-dimensional stability and segmental lordosis in a model of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In his original TLIF description, Harms recommended decortication of endplates, followed by placement of mesh cages in the middle-posterior intervertebral third. Subsequent studies presented conflicting recommendations: anterior placement of the spacer-cage for better load-sharing versus placement on the stronger posterolateral endplate regions.
METHODS: Six human lumbar spinal functional units were first tested intact. TLIF was performed using a semilunar poly-ether-ether-ketone cage randomly inserted in the anterior (TLIF-A) or posterior (TLIF-P) disc space. Pedicle screws and rods were added. Unconstrained pure moments in axial-torsion, lateral-bending (LB), and flexion-extension (FE) were applied under 0.05 Hz and +/-5 Nm sinusoidal waveform. Segmental motions were recorded. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were calculated. Pairwise comparisons were made using nonparametric Wilcoxon-matched pairs signed rank sum test with statistical significance set at P<0.05.
RESULTS: TLIF-A and TLIF-P significantly decreased ROM (P<0.05) of the intact spinal functional unit, in FE and LB. In axial-torsion, decrease of ROM after TLIF procedures was not significant (P>0.05). Delta-ROM between TLIF-A and TLIF-P was not significant (P>0.05). TLIF-A and TLIF-P significantly decreased NZ in LB (P<0.05). In FE, TLIF-P significantly decreased NZ (P<0.05); TLIF-A showed a trend toward significance (P=0.09). Delta-NZ between TLIF-A and TLIF-P was not significant (P>0.05). Segmental lordosis of TLIF-A and TLIF-P on C-arm views showed angle differences within the range of measurement error of Cobb angles.
CONCLUSIONS: Difference in ROM and NZ between anterior (TLIF-A) or posterior (TLIF-P) positions was not statistically significant. Similarly, both positions did not influence segmental lordosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18458586     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318074bb7d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  20 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.  Effect of TLIF Cage Placement on In Vivo Kinematics.

Authors:  Alejandro D Castellvi; Shankar K Thampi; Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; Yuan Yao; Qing Zou; Donald M Whiting; Michael Y Oh; Edward R Prostko; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction.

Authors:  Priyan R Landham; Angus S Don; Peter A Robertson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion.

Authors:  Christopher K Kepler; Russel C Huang; Amit K Sharma; Dennis S Meredith; Ochuko Metitiri; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

7.  Restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): comparison between straight type versus curvilinear type cage.

Authors:  Jong-Tae Kim; Myung-Hoon Shin; Ho-Jin Lee; Du-Yong Choi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Interbody Fusions in the Lumbar Spine: A Review.

Authors:  Ravi Verma; Sohrab Virk; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-01-13

9.  Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Have Advantages over Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

Authors:  Takahito Fujimori; Hai Le; William W Schairer; Sigurd H Berven; Erion Qamirani; Serena S Hu
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2014-12-01

10.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Local Bone Graft Alone for Single-Level Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Ahmed Sleem; Ashraf Marzouk
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.