Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 2-Dimensional Surgical Video

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. E53-E53
Author(s):  
Joseph H McMordie ◽  
Eric X Chen ◽  
Landon D Ehlers ◽  
Christopher C Gillis
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Patient Positioning ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Intraoperative Navigation ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Abstract This operative video is a detailed look at minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We provide a step-by-step guide with appropriate narration and operative video to enhance the educational experience. We review clinical and radiographic evaluation, patient positioning, intraoperative navigation, localization, percutaneous pedicle screw placement, minimally invasive approach, disc space preparation, placement of interbody device, and closure. By presenting up-to-date minimally invasive and intraoperative navigation techniques, this video provides educational benefit to all neurosurgeons regardless of training level.

Minimally invasive unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of spinal stenosis and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (v2supplement) ◽  
pp. Video4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Chen ◽  
Khoi D. Than ◽  
Frank LaMarca ◽  
Paul Park
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Unilateral Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

This video describes a minimally invasive approach for treatment of symptomatic grade I spondylolisthesis and high-grade spinal stenosis. In this procedure, a unilateral approach for bilateral decompression is utilized in conjunction with a modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. The key steps in the procedure are outlined, and include positioning, fluoroscopic positioning/guidance, exposure with tubular retractor system, technique for ipsilateral and contra-lateral decompression, disc space preparation and interbody grafting, percutaneous pedicle screw and rod placement, and closure.The video can be found here: http://youtu.be/QTymO4Cu4B0.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous navigated guidewireless lumbosacral pedicle screw fixation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (videosuppl1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Chen ◽  
Paul Park
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Key Steps

This video details the minimally invasive approach for treatment of a symptomatic Grade II lytic spondylolisthesis with high-grade foraminal stenosis. In this procedure, the use of a navigated, guidewireless technique for percutaneous pedicle screw placement at the lumbosacral junction is highlighted following initial decompression and transforaminal interbody fusion. Key steps of the procedure are delineated that include positioning, exposure, technique for interbody fusion, intraoperative image acquisition, and use of a concise 2-step process for navigated screw placement without using guidewires.The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/2u6H4Pc_8To.

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 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.

Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Samuel W. Terman ◽  
Rakesh Patel ◽  
Frank La Marca ◽  
Paul Park
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Object A reported risk factor for adjacent-segment disease is injury to the superior facet joint from pedicle screw placement. Given that the facet joint is not typically visualized during percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, there is a concern for increased facet violation (FV) in minimally invasive fusion procedures. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the incidence of FV among patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The impact of O-arm navigation compared with traditional fluoroscopy on FV in MITLIF is also assessed, as are risk factors for FV. Methods The authors identified a consecutive population of patients who underwent MITLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw placement, as well as a matched cohort of patients who underwent open TLIF. Postoperative CT imaging was assessed to determine intraarticular FV due to pedicle screw placement. Patients were stratified into minimally invasive and open TLIF groups. Within the MITLIF group, the authors performed a subanalysis of image guidance methods used in cases of FV. Two-tailed Student t-test, ANOVA, chi-square testing, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 282 patients were identified, with a total of 564 superior pedicle screw placements. The MITLIF group consisted of 142 patients with 284 screw insertions. The open TLIF group consisted of 140 patients with 280 screw insertions. Overall, 21 (7.4%) of 282 patients experienced FV. A total of 21 screws violated a facet joint for a screw-based FV rate of 3.7% (21 of 564 screws). There were no significant differences between the MITLIF and open TLIF groups in the percentage of patients with FV (6.3% vs 8.6%) and or the percentage of screws with FV (3.2% vs 4.3%) (p = 0.475 and p = 0.484, respectively). Further stratifying the MI group into O-arm navigation and fluoroscopic guidance subgroups, the patient-based rates of FV were 10.8% (4 of 37 patients) and 4.8% (5 of 105 patients), respectively, and the screw-based rates of FV were 5.4% (4 of 74 screws) and 2.4% (5 of 210 screws), respectively. There was no significant difference between the subgroups with respect to patient-based or screw-based FV rates (p = 0.375 and p = 0.442, respectively). The O-arm group had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.021). BMI greater than 29.9 was independently associated with higher FV (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.65–8.53, p = 0.039). Conclusions The findings suggest that minimally invasive pedicle screw placement is not associated with higher rates of FV. Overall violation rates were similar in MITLIF and open TLIF. Higher BMI, however, was a risk factor for increased FV. The use of O-arm fluoroscopy with computer-assisted guidance did not significantly decrease the rate of FV.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document