scholarly journals Expandable Cage Technology—Transforaminal, Anterior, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S69-S80
Author(s):  
Mohamed Macki ◽  
Travis Hamilton ◽  
Yazeed W Haddad ◽  
Victor Chang
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transpsoas Approach ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Invasive Techniques ◽  
Neurovascular Structures

Abstract This review of the literature will focus on the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes for expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) operations. The expandable TLIF cage has become a workhorse for common degenerative pathology, whereas expandable ALIF cages carry the promise of greater lordotic correction while evading the diseased posterior elements. Expandable LLIF cages call upon minimally invasive techniques for a retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach to the disc space, obviating the need for an access surgeon and decreasing risk of injury to the critical neurovascular structures. Nuances between expandable and static cages for all 3 TLIF, ALIF, and LLIF operations are discussed in this review.

scholarly journals Computerized tomography evaluation of a resorbable implant after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Kuklo ◽  
Michael K. Rosner ◽  
David W. Polly
Keyword(s):  
Computerized Tomography ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Delayed Union ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Screw Breakage

Object Synthetic bioabsorbable implants have recently been introduced in spinal surgery; consequently, the indications, applications, and results are still evolving. The authors used absorbable interbody spacers (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) packed with recombinant bone morphogenetic protein (Infuse; Medtronic Sofamor Danek) for single- and multiple-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures over a period of 18 months. This is a consecutive case series in which postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scanning was used to assess fusion status. Methods There were 22 patients (17 men, five women; 39 fusion levels) whose mean age was 41.6 years (range 23–70 years) and in whom the mean follow-up duration was 12.4 months (range 6–18 months). Bridging bone was noted as early as the 3-month postoperative CT scan when obtained; solid arthrodesis was routinely noted between 6 and 12 months in 38 (97.4%) of 39 fusion levels. In patients who underwent repeated CT scanning, the fusion mass appeared to increase with time, whereas the disc space height remained stable. Although the results are early (mean 12-month follow-up duration), there was only one noted asymptomatic delayed union/nonunion at L5–S1 in a two-level TLIF with associated screw breakage. There were no infections or complications related to the cages. Conclusions The bioabsorbable cages appear to be a viable alternative to metal interbody spacers, and may be ideally suited to spinal interbody applications because of their progressive load-bearing properties.

Minimally invasive tubular surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (v2supplement) ◽  
pp. Video19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Kimball ◽  
Andrew Yew ◽  
Ruth Getachew ◽  
Daniel C. Lu
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Posterior Approach ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Postoperative Patient ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
Circumferential Fusion ◽  
Single Posterior Approach ◽  
Invasive Techniques

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was originally developed as a method for circumferential fusion via a single posterior approach and is now an extremely common procedure for the treatment of lumbar instability. More recently, minimally invasive techniques have been applied to this procedure with the goal of decreasing tissue disruption, blood loss and postoperative patient discomfort. Here we describe a minimally invasive tubular TLIF on a 60-year-old male with radiculopathy from an unstable L4–5 spondylolisthesis.The video can be found here: http://youtu.be/0BbxQiUmtRc.

scholarly journals Disc Space Preparation in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches

2014 ◽  
Vol 472 (6) ◽  
pp. 1800-1805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Rihn ◽  
Sapan D. Gandhi ◽  
Patrick Sheehan ◽  
Alexander R. Vaccaro ◽  
Alan S. Hilibrand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space

scholarly journals Comparison of Opioid Consumption Patterns of Three Interbody Fusion Surgical Techniques

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110677
Author(s):  
Taryn E. LeRoy ◽  
Andrew Moon ◽  
Matthew Chilton ◽  
Marissa Gedman ◽  
Jessica P. Aidlen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Opioid Consumption ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Chi Square Analysis

Study Design Retrospective review. Objectives With increased awareness of the opioid crisis in spine surgery, the focus postoperatively has shifted to managing surgical site pain while minimizing opioid use. Numerous studies have compared outcomes and fusion status of different interbody fusion techniques; however, there is limited literature evaluating opioid consumption postoperatively between techniques. The aim of this study was to assess in-house and postoperative opioid consumption across 3 surgical techniques. Methods Patients were stratified by technique: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and cortical screw (CS) instrumentation with interbody fusion. Age, ASA, BMI, depression, preoperative opioid use, EBL, and OR time were recorded and compared across surgical groups using Welch’s ANOVA and chi-square analysis. Total morphine equivalent dose (MED) was tabulated for both in-house consumption and postoperative prescriptions and was compared across surgical techniques using Welch’s ANOVA analysis, Mann Whitney U tests, and linear regression. Results Two hundred and thirty nine patients underwent one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. One hundred and twenty one patients underwent CS instrumentation, 95 underwent PLIF, and 83 underwent MIS-TLIF. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients who had a history of depression and preoperative opioid consumption in the CS group ( P = .001, P = .009). CS instrumentation required significantly less total post-op opioids per kilogram bodyweight compared to MIS-TLIF and PLIF surgeries ( P = .029). Conclusions Patients who underwent CS instrumentation required less opioids postoperatively. CS instrumentation may be associated with less postoperative pain due to the less invasive approach, however, patient education and prescriber practice also play a role in postoperative opioid consumption.

scholarly journals Instrumentation-related complications of lumbar degenerative disc diseases treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyu Yang ◽  
Xinyu Liu
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Neurological Deficit ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Disc ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Superior Level

Objective: To analyze the instrumentation-related complications of patients with lumbar degenerative disc diseases (LDD) who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS- TLIF) and to discuss the potential strategy for the control of these complications. Methods: A total of 87 patients with LDD were treated with the MIS-TLIF procedure. Complications, including malposition or breakage of guide pin, percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) or cages, neurological deficit, and superior-level facet joint violations, were determined during and after the surgery. Computed tomography (CT) was used to evaluate the PPS accuracy and the superior-level facet joint violations. Results: A total of 386 PPSs were used. During the surgery, 3 (0.8%) guide pin and 1 (0.3%) PPS perforated the anterior wall of the vertebral body, respectively. One (0.3%) PPS was pulled out during the reduction of slip. Malposition of the cages occurred in 6 (1.6%) PPSs. These were all adjusted accordingly during the surgery. All the patients received > 2 years of follow-up. No loosening or breakage of PPS and cage was observed, but CT showed 27 (7.0%) PPSs misplaced. No neurological deficit related to misplaced PPS was observed. The total facet joint violation (FJV) rate was 36.2%, with grade 2 and grade 3 violations is 21 (12.1%) and 6 (3.4%), respectively. Conclusion: MIS-TLIF has similar instrumentation-related complications with open TLIF. Accurate preoperative evaluation and improved surgical techniques can effectively reduce these instrumentation-related complications.

Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Isaacs ◽  
Vinod K. Podichetty ◽  
Paul Santiago ◽  
Faheem A. Sandhu ◽  
John Spears ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Single Level

Object The authors have developed a novel technique for percutaneous fusion in which standard microendoscopic discectomy is modified. Based on data obtained in their cadaveric studies they considered that this minimally invasive interbody fusion could be safely implemented clinically. The authors describe their initial experience with a microendoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (METLIF) technique, with regard to safety in the placement of percutaneous instrumentation, perioperative morbidity, and early postoperative results. Methods The METLIF procedure was performed unilaterally in 20 patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis or pure mechanical back pain with endoscopic assistance, hemilaminectomy, unilateral facetectomy, and microdiscectomy. Two interbody grafts were placed via the lateral exposure of the disc space. Bilateral percutaneous pedicle screws were then inserted. Compared with patients who had undergone single-level posterior LIF at the same institutions, intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay (LOS), and postoperative narcotic agent use were significantly lower in the METLIF group. The mean LOS for the percutaneous fusion group was 3.4 days (5.1 days in those who underwent PLIF; p < 0.02). There have been no procedure-related complications in this series to date. Conclusions The METLIF technique provided an option for percutaneous interbody fusion similar to that in open surgery while minimizing destruction to adjacent tissues. This technique was safe and exhibited a trend toward decreased intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, total narcotic use, and the risk of transfusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document