Literature DB >> 24445606

Can unilateral-approach minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion attain indirect contralateral decompression? A preliminary report of 66 MRI analysis.

Moon-Chan Kim1, Jeong-Uk Park, Woo-Chul Kim, Hong-Seok Lee, Hung-Tae Chung, Moo-Won Kim, Nam-Su Chung.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Few studies have measured the amount of indirect decompression at the contralateral neural foramen after unilateral-approach minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF). This study examined the amount of intraoperative indirect decompression at the contralateral neural foramen after a unilateral-approach MITLIF in patients with bilateral foraminal stenosis.
METHODS: From February 2009 to October 2012, 66 consecutive patients with bilateral foraminal stenosis underwent unilateral-approach MITLIF and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Direct decompression was performed at the central canal and approach-side neural foramen, while indirect decompression using cage distraction was pursued at the contralateral neural foramen. Qualitative parameters of the central canal (dural sac morphology) and neural foramen (foramen morphology) were analyzed using pre- and post-operative MRI. Quantitative measurement on the central canal (dural sac cross-sectional area) and neural foramen (foramen height and width) were also measured.
RESULTS: A total of 69 intervertebral levels in the 66 patients were analyzed. Qualitative parameters of the central canal and contralateral neural foramen improved significantly after unilateral-approach MITLIF (both P < 0.001). The mean dural sac cross-sectional area increased from 51.1 ± 28.8 to 84.8 ± 30.2 mm(2) (P < 0.001). The mean preoperative contralateral foramen height, maximum foramen width, and minimum foramen width were 11.8 ± 2.0, 4.9 ± 1.5, and 1.5 ± 0.7 mm, respectively, and these values increased postoperatively to 14.7 ± 2.5, 6.5 ± 1.8, and 2.4 ± 1.0 mm, respectively (all P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Quantitative and qualitative parameters of the central canal and contralateral neural foramen increased significantly after unilateral-approach MITLIF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24445606     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3192-3

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


  21 in total

1.  Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs.

Authors:  T Steffen; A Tsantrizos; M Aebi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Morphologic changes in the lumbar intervertebral foramen due to flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation: an in vitro anatomic and biomechanical study.

Authors:  A Fujiwara; H S An; T H Lim; V M Haughton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  The effect of the X-Stop implantation on intervertebral foramen, segmental spinal canal length and disc space in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Zongmiao Wan; Shaobai Wang; Michal Kozanek; Qun Xia; Frederick L Mansfield; Guohua Lü; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes.

Authors:  Isaac O Karikari; Robert E Isaacs
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis.

Authors:  L G Jenis; H S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Is spinal stenosis assessment dependent on slice orientation? A magnetic resonance imaging study.

Authors:  Lucy Henderson; Gerit Kulik; Delphine Richarme; Nicolas Theumann; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Theumann; Alexandre Burn; Rosamond Tansey; Douglas Wardlaw; Francis W Smith; Gerit Kulik
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Lateral lumbar spinal canal stenosis: classification, pathologic anatomy and surgical decompression.

Authors:  C K Lee; W Rauschning; W Glenn
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Microsurgical nerve root canal widening without fusion for lumbosacral intervertebral foraminal stenosis: technical notes and early results.

Authors:  H Baba; K Uchida; Y Maezawa; N Furusawa; Y Okumura; S Imura
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.772

10.  Clinical results of intrapedicular partial pediculectomy for lumbar foraminal stenosis.

Authors:  Nobutake Ozeki; Yoichi Aota; Masaaki Uesugi; Kanichiro Kaneko; Hisanori Mihara; Takanori Niimura; Tomoyuki Saito
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-07
View more
  3 in total

1.  Risk factor of contralateral radiculopathy following microendoscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Zhong-Yu Liu; Liang-Ming Zhang; Jian-Wen Dong; Pei-Gen Xie; Rui-Qiang Chen; Bu Yang; Chang Liu; Bin Liu; Li-Min Rong
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Is the Cage an Additional Hardware in Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Low Grade Spondylolisthesis? A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Ramachandran Govindasamy; Prince Solomon; Deepak Sugumar; James J Gnanadoss; Yuvaraja Murugan; Syed Najimudeen
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-05-01

3.  [Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between two approaches in treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis].

Authors:  Rui Zhong; Runsheng Wang; Jianheng Liu; Zhenchuan Han; Wei Jiang; Qingzu Liu; Keya Mao
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-07-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.