Literature DB >> 21999389

Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience.

Matthew J Tormenti1, Matthew B Maserati, Christopher M Bonfield, Peter C Gerszten, John J Moossy, Adam S Kanter, Richard M Spiro, David O Okonkwo.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Since its original description in 1982, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has grown in popularity as a means for achieving circumferential fusion. The authors sought to define the perioperative complication rates of the TLIF procedure at a large academic medical center.
METHODS: For all eligible patients from a consecutive series of 531 TLIF procedures, the institution's complication database and the medical record were reviewed to identify complications. Medical, nonprocedure-related complications such as myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism were excluded due to inconsistency in the recording of these complications in the database. Rates were calculated for each type of complication, and subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the effect of previous lumbar surgery, and of multilevel versus single-level interbody fusion on complication rates. Odds ratios were calculated and evaluated using chi-square analysis.
RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-one patients underwent a TLIF procedure during the study period. Two hundred forty-four patients (46%) had undergone a previous lumbar operation. Interbody fusion was performed at 1 level in 317 patients, at 2 levels in 188 patients, at 3 levels in 24 patients, and at 4 levels in 2 patients. One hundred thirty-five patients (25.4%) had at least one procedure-related complication. The most common complications were durotomy (14.3% of patients) and infection (3.8% of patients). Symptomatic screw misplacement (2.1% of patients) and interbody cage migration (1.8% of patients) were less common complications. The overall complication rate was greater in those patients who had undergone a previous operation (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59; p < 0.01) and in those who had multilevel surgery (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 1.04-2.28; p = 0.03), and the incidence of durotomy was higher in patients who had a previous operation (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07-2.87; p = 0.03). These differences were statistically significant. Durotomy also occurred more frequently in patients who had multilevel interbody fusion (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92-2.43; p = 0.13). A trend toward higher infection rates in those patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion was observed (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.62-3.68; p = 0.49), but this was not statistically significant. Infection rates did not differ between revision and first-time surgeries.
CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has gained widespread popularity as a procedure for achieving arthrodesis in the lumbar spine. Complications occurred more often in patients undergoing revision surgery or multilevel interbody fusion. Durotomy and infection were the most common complications in this series.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21999389     DOI: 10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  23 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and degenerative spondylosis: 5-year results.

Authors:  Yung Park; Joong Won Ha; Yun Tae Lee; Na Young Sung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-18       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review.

Authors:  F Steiger; H-J Becker; C J Standaert; F Balague; J-P Vader; F Porchet; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Extreme lateral interbody fusion in spinal revision surgery: clinical results and complications.

Authors:  Matteo Formica; Andrea Zanirato; Luca Cavagnaro; Marco Basso; Stefano Divano; Lamberto Felli; Carlo Formica
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Effectiveness and safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with previous laminectomy.

Authors:  Hossein Elgafy; Doug Olson; Jiayong Liu; Caitlin Lewis; Hassan Semaan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery.

Authors:  Sang-Jin Park; Jong-Moon Hwang; Dae-Chul Cho; Subum Lee; Chi Heon Kim; Inbo Han; Dae-Won Park; Heum-Dai Kwon; Kyoung-Tae Kim
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-09-30

7.  Complications after surgery for lumbar stenosis in a veteran population.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; David Hickam; Jonathan P Duckart; Mark Piedra
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Comparison of robot-assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery.

Authors:  Jia-Nan Zhang; Yong Fan; Xin He; Tuan-Jiang Liu; Ding-Jun Hao
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Complication avoidance with pre-operative screening: insights from the Seattle spine team.

Authors:  Quinlan D Buchlak; Vijay Yanamadala; Jean-Christophe Leveque; Rajiv Sethi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-09

Review 10.  Set screw fracture with cage dislocation after two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a case report.

Authors:  Philip Johannes Felix Leute; Ahmed Hammad; Isabel Hoffmann; Sebastian Hoppe; Hans-Michael Klinger; Stefan Lakemeier
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2015-01-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.