Literature DB >> 34734134

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers.

Anthony J Russo1, Steven A Schopler2, Katelyn J Stetzner1, Torrey Shirk3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is to restore and maintain disc height and lordosis until arthrodesis occurs, while minimizing muscle disruption and improving recovery time. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes in patients treated with an articulating expandable spacer in MI TLIF to more traditional static spacers.
METHODS: This was a multi-site, multi-surgeon, Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective clinical study from a prospectively collected database. It included 48 patients with a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level from L2 to S1 with or without Grade 1 spondylolisthesis who underwent MI TLIF using either an articulating expandable or static interbody spacer. Twenty-seven patients were in the banana-shaped articulating expandable interbody spacer (ALTERA®, Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) group, while 21 patients were in the static interbody spacer group. Both groups had supplemental posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation. Radiographic records were assessed for disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up.
RESULTS: The articulating expandable spacer group displayed significantly greater improvement in anterior disc height from baseline compared to the static spacer group at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.6 mm (79%), 2.8 mm (92%), 3.4 mm (105%), and 3.8 mm (139%), respectively (P<0.05). Mean increases in posterior disc height were significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group by 1.2 mm (65%) and 1.7 mm (104%) at 6 months and final follow-up, respectively (P<0.05). Articulating expandable spacers produced significantly greater average improvement by 4.0 mm in neuroforaminal height from baseline to final follow-up compared to static spacers (P<0.05). Increases in intervertebral angle from baseline were significantly greater in the expandable group than in the static group at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.5°, 2.8°, and 3.1°, respectively (P<0.05). The articulating expandable spacer group resulted in significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis from baseline to 3 and 6 months than the static spacer group by 4.4° and 4.0°, respectively (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: MI TLIF with articulating expandable interbody spacers provides significant restoration and maintenance of disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis compared to static spacers in this comparative cohort. Long-term clinical outcomes are needed to correlate with these radiographic improvements. 2021 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive; arthrodesis; lordosis; static; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)

Year:  2021        PMID: 34734134      PMCID: PMC8511571          DOI: 10.21037/jss-20-630

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  38 in total

1.  Effects of endplate removal on the structural properties of the lower lumbar vertebral bodies.

Authors:  Thomas R Oxland; J Pamela Grant; Marcel F Dvorak; Charles G Fisher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF.

Authors:  Ian Teng; Julian Han; Kevin Phan; Ralph Mobbs
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 1.961

3.  Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis.

Authors:  Steven D Glassman; Sigurd Berven; Keith Bridwell; William Horton; John R Dimar
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Brandon B Carlson; Philip Saville; James Dowdell; Rie Goto; Avani Vaishnav; Catherine Himo Gang; Steven McAnany; Todd J Albert; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters.

Authors:  Ammar H Hawasli; Jawad M Khalifeh; Ajay Chatrath; Chester K Yarbrough; Wilson Z Ray
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.047

6.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach.

Authors:  Michael Conti Mica; Leonard I Voronov; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Bartosz Wojewnik; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-31

7.  Radiographic Results of Minimally Invasive (MIS) Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LIF) Compared with Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Jae Kwan Lim; Sung Min Kim
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2013-06-30

Review 8.  Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Aimin Li; Xiang Li; Yang Zhong
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  The expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - Two years follow-up.

Authors:  Joseph Gamal Boktor; Rhys D Pockett; Navin Verghese
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

10.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable cages: Radiological and clinical results of banana-shaped and straight implants.

Authors:  Tjark Tassemeier; Marcel Haversath; Marcus Jäger
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
View more
  2 in total

1.  History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Michael C Prabhu; Kevin C Jacob; Madhav R Patel; Hanna Pawlowski; Nisheka N Vanjani; Kern Singh
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-09-30

Review 2.  Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guang-Xun Lin; Jin-Sung Kim; Vit Kotheeranurak; Chien-Min Chen; Bao-Shan Hu; Gang Rui
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-08-10
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.