Literature DB >> 31435555

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Boomerang-Shaped Cage with Traditional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Yohei Ishihara1, Masutaro Morishita1, Jiro Miyaki1, Koji Kanzaki2, Tomoaki Toyone3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with a boomerang-shaped cage and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) according to fused level and elucidate whether TLIF could replace PLIF at all lumbar levels.
METHODS: The study investigated 128 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent a single-level TLIF or traditional PLIF. Intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and recovery rate were analyzed. Percent slip, disc height, and local lordosis at the fused level were measured using X-ray images from preoperation to the final follow-up.
RESULTS: No significant differences in recovery rate were observed at any level. The operative time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the TLIF group at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. There were no significant differences in disc height or local lordosis at the L3/4 and L4/5 levels, and a satisfactory level of maintenance after the operation was achieved in both groups. However, at the L5/S1 level, postoperative maintenance after TLIF could not be achieved, and the obtained disc height and local lordosis in TLIF significantly decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional PLIF, TLIF was a less invasive procedure with a shorter operative time and lesser blood loss. TLIF could obtain similar local lordosis and disc height as PLIF at the L3/4 and L4/5 levels. At the L5/S1 level, the postoperative maintenance of local lordosis and disc height after TLIF was inferior to that after PLIF. On the basis of our results, we do not recommend performing TLIF at only the L5/S1 level.

Entities:  

Keywords:  boomerang-shaped cage; fused lumbar levels; lumbar spondylolisthesis; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Year:  2018        PMID: 31435555      PMCID: PMC6690112          DOI: 10.22603/ssrr.2018-0022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res        ISSN: 2432-261X


  22 in total

1.  A morphological study of lumbar vertebral endplates: radiographic, visual and digital measurements.

Authors:  Yue Wang; Michele C Battié; Tapio Videman
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Kidney-type intervertebral spacers should be located anteriorly in cantilever transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analyses of risk factors for spacer subsidence for a minimum of 2 years.

Authors:  Shoji Fukuta; Kei Miyamoto; Hideo Hosoe; Katsuji Shimizu
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2011-05

3.  Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of 1070 cases.

Authors:  Hiroaki Kimura; Jitsuhiko Shikata; Seiichi Odate; Tsunemitsu Soeda; Satoru Yamamura
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages.

Authors:  Annette Kettler; Werner Schmoelz; Erich Kast; Maria Gottwald; Lutz Claes; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support.

Authors:  Thomas G Lowe; Shukor Hashim; Lucas A Wilson; Michael F O'Brien; David A B Smith; Molly J Diekmann; Julie Trommeter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Single segment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: reduction or fusion in situ.

Authors:  Xiao-Feng Lian; Tie-Sheng Hou; Jian-Guang Xu; Bing-Fang Zeng; Jie Zhao; Xiao-Kang Liu; Er-Zhu Yang; Cheng Zhao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  S C Humphreys; S D Hodges; A G Patwardhan; J C Eck; R B Murphy; L A Covington
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients.

Authors:  Shinya Okuda; Takenori Oda; Akira Miyauchi; Takamitsu Haku; Tomio Yamamoto; Motoki Iwasaki
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients.

Authors:  Pier Paolo Mura; Mauro Costaglioli; Maurizio Piredda; Silvia Caboni; Silvia Casula
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-02       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Yasuchika Aoki; Masatsune Yamagata; Fumitake Nakajima; Yoshikazu Ikeda; Koh Shimizu; Masakazu Yoshihara; Junichi Iwasaki; Tomoaki Toyone; Koichi Nakagawa; Arata Nakajima; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2010-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.