Literature DB >> 31175483

Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis.

Yu-Cheng Yao1, Hsi-Hsien Lin1, Po-Hsin Chou1,2, Shih-Tien Wang1,2, Ming-Chau Chang3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to quantify the interbody bone graft area following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) and investigate their correlations with rates of fusion, complications, and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Patients undergoing TLIF of 1 or 2 levels between October 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively included. Fusion and bone graft areas were assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 6 months postoperatively. The bone graft area ratio was defined as the bone graft area divided by the average endplate area. The distributions of bone graft area within the discs were also recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires.
RESULTS: In total, 77 disc levels in 57 patients were analyzed. The fusion rate was 79.1% in the open group and 82.4% in the MIS group (p = 0.718). Clinical outcomes of both groups improved significantly. Changes in VAS and ODI scores at 12 months postoperatively were comparable between groups. Bone graft area ratio was not significantly different between the two groups (open, 38 ± 10.8%; MIS, 38.1 ± 9.0%, p = 0.977). Analysis of bone graft distribution revealed that the contralateral-dorsal part of the disc had the lowest bone graft area. The bone graft area ratio was significantly higher in the solid union group (39.2 ± 10.4%) than in the non-solid union group (33.5 ± 6.4%, p = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS: The fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone graft area; Clinical outcome; Endplate preparation; Fusion rate; MIS; TLIF

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31175483     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06002-4

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


  22 in total

1.  The maturation of grafted bone after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an interbody carbon cage: a prospective five-year study.

Authors:  T Kanemura; Y Ishikawa; A Matsumoto; G Yoshida; Y Sakai; Z Itoh; S Imagama; N Kawakami
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-12

2.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results.

Authors:  Lars Hackenberg; Henry Halm; Viola Bullmann; Volker Vieth; Marc Schneider; Ulf Liljenqvist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels.

Authors:  Christopher P Ames; Frank L Acosta; John Chi; Jaicharan Iyengar; William Muiru; Emre Acaroglu; Christian M Puttlitz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Analysis of stress distribution in lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Meakin R Judith; Aravind Kumar; Viren Mishra; Mulholland C Robert
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  [Not Available].

Authors:  J G Harms; D Jeszenszky
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages.

Authors:  Guy R Fogel; John S Toohey; Arvo Neidre; John W Brantigan
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2007-02

7.  Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates.

Authors:  Ray H Wu; Justin F Fraser; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Fusion rates of a morselized local bone graft in polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion by quantitative analysis using consecutive three-dimensional computed tomography scans.

Authors:  Jae Hyup Lee; Ji-Ho Lee; Jae-Woo Park; Hye Soo Lee
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Eric G Verwiebe; Jordan M Hall; David W Polly; Timothy R Kuklo
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2005-08

10.  Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion.

Authors:  Guy R Fogel; John S Toohey; Arvo Neidre; John W Brantigan
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-05-29       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status.

Authors:  S Phani Kiran; G Sudhir
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-09-08

2.  Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Masayoshi Fukushima; Nozomu Ohtomo; Michita Noma; Yudai Kumanomido; Hiroyuki Nakarai; Keiichiro Tozawa; Yuichi Yoshida; Ryuji Sakamoto; Junya Miyahara; Masato Anno; Naohiro Kawamura; Akiro Higashikawa; Yujiro Takeshita; Hirohiko Inanami; Sakae Tanaka; Yasushi Oshima
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 2.430

3.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hybrid graft in patients with Modic changes undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jiaxun Jiao; Jiaqi Li; Yun Luo; Wei Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 2.359

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.