Literature DB >> 30237931

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF).

Jeffrey L Gum1, Deepak Reddy1, Steven Glassman1.   

Abstract

Historically, posterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed using a directly posterior procedure (PLIF). Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) utilizes a more lateral window in order to access the interbody space without excessive dural retraction. Theoretical advantages of TLIF include increased fusion success, more complete foraminal decompression, better correction of deformity, and more effective treatment of discogenic pain. The procedure is done with the following steps:1 and 2. Preoperative planning and patient positioning are important to maximize the efficiency of the procedure. There is a wide variety of instrumentation and technique options; therefore, a systematic approach starting with setup is important.3. The spine is approached through a standard posterior midline incision. It is not necessary to expose the lateral gutters, but the addition of posterolateral fusion is common.4. Pedicle screw placement is undertaken via a standard approach.5. Decompression is initiated with a laminectomy in the midline, exposing the ligamentum.6. The ligamentum is carefully removed, and hemostasis is obtained. A facetectomy is then performed.7. Once the posterior bone elements are resected and the decompression is complete, the dura and neural elements are mobilized. The goal is to be able to access the posterior anulus and disc space easily without any dural tension.8. Distraction through the TLIF level helps facilitate interbody placement. We describe a triple distraction technique that uses the midline elements, and both contralateral and ipsilateral distraction methods.9. A window is formed on the disc, with care taken to protect the exiting and traversing roots. The window is enlarged using a combination of box osteotomes and Kerrison rongeurs. A window that is a minimum of 10 mm in size facilitates disc space preparation.10 and 11. Disc space preparation is performed using a combination of curets, pituitary rongeurs, and end-plate preparation tools. Thorough disc-space preparation is critical for both correcting the deformity and obtaining a solid fusion.12. The disc space is sized for an appropriate interbody cage. The anterior aspect of the disc space and the cage are both packed with bone graft. This may involve the use of iliac crest graft, local bone, or bone substitutes, depending on the specific clinical situation.13. Cage and screw placement is verified by biplane radiography, and lordosis is restored by compression across the screws bilaterally. Osteotomy of the contralateral facet may be necessary to achieve substantial restoration of lordosis.14. If the lateral gutters have been exposed, grafting in this region is undertaken as well. Care must be taken with graft placement on the TLIF side as facet and pars resection leaves the exiting route exposed.15. Closure is undertaken in a standard fashion.Postoperative recovery does not differ substantially from other standard fusion procedures. Mobilization is undertaken over the first several weeks, and fusion healing is expected in the 6-month to 1-year time frame.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 30237931      PMCID: PMC6145629          DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech        ISSN: 2160-2204


  15 in total

1.  United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Sohail Mirza; Brook I Martin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Cody E Bünger; Terkel Christiansen; Kristian Høy; Søren P Eiskjaer; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Kee-Yong Ha; Ki-Ho Na; Jae-Hyuk Shin; Ki-Won Kim
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-06

Review 4.  Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Zhi-Jie Zhou; Feng-Dong Zhao; Xiang-Qian Fang; Xing Zhao; Shun-Wu Fan
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2011-05-27

5.  The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): general overview and pilot-year project description.

Authors:  Matthew J McGirt; Theodore Speroff; Robert S Dittus; Frank E Harrell; Anthony L Asher
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.047

6.  Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Tina S Videbaek; Finn B Christensen; Rikke Soegaard; Ebbe S Hansen; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Bent Niedermann; Søren P Eiskjoer; Cody E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Per Ekman; Hans Möller; Tycho Tullberg; Pavel Neumann; Rune Hedlund
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  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

9.  Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF stratified by diagnostic indication.

Authors:  Roger Kirk Owens; Leah Y Carreon; Mladen Djurasovic; Steven D Glassman
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2014-05

10.  Trends in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease in the United States.

Authors:  William C Pannell; David D Savin; Trevor P Scott; Jeffrey C Wang; Michael D Daubs
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  4 in total

1.  Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ken Porche; Sandra Yan; Basma Mohamed; Cynthia Garvan; Ronny Samra; Kaitlyn Melnick; Sasha Vaziri; Christoph Seubert; Matthew Decker; Adam Polifka; Daniel J Hoh
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 4.297

2.  Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies.

Authors:  Hai Le; Ryan Anderson; Eileen Phan; Joseph Wick; Joshua Barber; Rolando Roberto; Eric Klineberg; Yashar Javidan
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-06-22

3.  Augmenting posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage improves clinical outcome, but not fusion rate, of posterior decompression.

Authors:  Teoman Atici; Selcan Yerebakan; Cenk Ermutlu; Ali Özyalçın
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.671

4.  Clinical impact and imaging results after a modified procedure of ACDF: a prospective case-controlled study based on ninety cases with two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Shunmin Wang; Jian Zhu; Kaiqiang Sun; Rongzi Chen; Aigang Liu; Jie Cao; Ruijin You; Feng Zhao; Jiangang Shi
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.