scholarly journals Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation

10.14444/7126 ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 7126
Author(s):  
Álvaro Dowling ◽  
Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Peek Cage ◽  
Supplemental Fixation

Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 496-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xu ◽  
Hao Tang ◽  
Zhonghai Li
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Peek Cage ◽  
Han Nationality

Object The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure was developed to provide the surgeon with a fusion procedure that may reduce many of the risks and limitations associated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion, yet produce similar stability in the spine. There are few large series with long-term follow-up data regarding instrumented TLIF and placement of 1 diagonal polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. The authors performed a prospective study to evaluate the outcome and safety of instrumented TLIF with 1 diagonal PEEK cage for degenerative spondylolisthesis in the Han nationality in China. Methods Between May 2001 and April 2006, 60 patients (35 men and 25 women; mean age 55.5 years, range 45–70 years) with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent the TLIF procedure with 1 diagonal PEEK cage and additional pedicle screw internal fixation at the authors' institution. The inclusion criteria involved degenerative spondylolisthesis (Grades I and II) in patients with chronic low-back pain with or without leg pain. Results One patient had a postoperative temporary motor and sensory deficit of the adjacent nerve root. Reoperation was required in 1 patient because of pedicle screw migration. One patient developed a pseudarthrosis and had increasing complaints of low-back pain 1 year postoperatively and underwent a subsequent revision surgery. Two patients had nerve root symptomatic compression resulting from cage migration and insufficient decompression after surgery, and they underwent revision. Two patients had a dural tear that required fibrin glue application during surgery. No implant fracture or subsidence occurred in any patient. Clinically, the pain index and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score improved significantly from before surgery to the 2-year follow-up. In the TLIF group, the pain index improved from 69 to 25 (p < 0.001). The postoperative ODI showed a significant postoperative reduction of disability during the whole period of follow-up (p < 0.001). The preoperative mean ODI score was 32.3 (16–80), and postoperative 13.1 (0–28). Disc space height and foraminal height were restored by the surgery and maintained at the latest follow-up time. Conclusions In the authors' experience, instrumented TLIF with 1 diagonal PEEK cage can be a surgical option for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in the Han nationality in China.

Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 534-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron R. Cutler ◽  
Saquib Siddiqui ◽  
Mohan Avinash L. ◽  
Virany H. Hillard ◽  
Franco Cerabona ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Peek Cage ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
The Mean

Object Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an accepted alternative to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine in the treatment of degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and recurrent disc herniation. To maintain disc height while arthrodesis takes place, the technique requires the use of an interbody spacer. Although titanium cages are used in this capacity, the two most common spacers are polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and femoral cortical allografts (FCAs). The authors compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent TLIF with pedicle screw fixation, in whom either a PEEK cage or an FCA was placed as an interbody spacer. Methods The charts and x-ray films obtained in 39 patients (age range 33–68 years, mean 44.7 years) who underwent single-level TLIF between October 2001 and April 2004 and in whom either a PEEK cage (18 patients) or FCA (21 patients) was placed as an interbody spacer were evaluated in a retrospective study. Radiological outcome was based on fusion rate and a comparison of the initial postoperative lordotic angle on standing lateral radiographs with that at long-term follow up (mean follow up 15.1 months, minimum 12 months). To control for variations in radiographic magnification, the authors used lordotic angle as an indirect measure of disc space height. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). There were no major complications in either group. Radiographically documented fusion occurred in all patients in the PEEK group and 95.2% of those in the FCA group. Pseudarthrosis developed in one patient in the FCA group, and this patient underwent additional surgery. In both groups, the mean lordotic angle changed by less than 2.20° during the postoperative period, and the mean postoperative ODI score was more than 40 points lower than the mean preoperative score. There was no significant difference between the two groups in mean change in lordotic angle (p = 0.415) and mean change in ODI score (p = 0.491). Conclusions Both PEEK cages and FCAs are highly effective in promoting interbody fusion, maintaining postoperative disc space height, and achieving desirable clinical outcomes in patients who undergo TLIF with pedicle screw fixation. The advantages of PEEK cages include a lower incidence of subsidence and their radiolucency, which permits easier visualization of bone growth.

scholarly journals Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110003
Author(s):  
Yu-Cheng Yao ◽  
Po-Hsin Chou ◽  
Hsi-Hsien Lin ◽  
Shih-Tien Wang ◽  
Ming-Chau Chang
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Peek Cage ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Peek Composite ◽  
Cage Subsidence

Study Design: Retrospective case-control study. Objectives: This study aims to present the clinical and radiographical outcomes of the titanium-polyetheretherketone (Ti/PEEK) composite cage compared to those of the standard PEEK cage in patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Methods: Patients receiving 1 level MI-TLIF between October 2015 and October 2017 were included with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The patients were segregated into 2 groups; Ti/PEEK group and PEEK group. Each patient was propensity-matched using preoperative age, sex, and body mass index. Early fusion rate was evaluated by computed tomography at postoperative 6 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Results: After matching, there were 27 patients included in each group. The demographics, diagnosis, and surgical details were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The 6-month rate was 88.9% in Ti/PEEK group. The fusion rate and cage subsidence rate had no difference between the 2 groups. The complication rate in the Ti/PEEK group was comparable to that in the PEEK group. There was no difference in VAS and ODI scores during a 2-year follow-up period. Conclusions: The use of Ti/PEEK composite cage was as safe and effective as the use of PEEK cage in MI-TLIF. The 6-month fusion rate was 88.9%. Our finding revealed comparable clinical results for surgeons using Ti/PEEK composite cages in MI-TLIF compared to those using the PEEK cage.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Mladen Djurasovic ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Kirk Owens ◽  
Morgan Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Direct Costs ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.

Obesity may be associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in spinopelvic-mismatched patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88
Author(s):  
Ping-Guo Duan ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Minghao Wang ◽  
Andrew K. Chan ◽  
Bo Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Surgery Rates

OBJECTIVEIn this study, the authors’ aim was to investigate whether obesity affects surgery rates for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis.METHODSPatients who underwent single-level TLIF for spondylolisthesis at the University of California, San Francisco, from 2006 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a minimum 2-year follow-up, single-level TLIF, and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Exclusion criteria were trauma, tumor, infection, multilevel fusions, non-TLIF fusions, or less than a 2-year follow-up. Patient demographic data were collected, and an analysis of spinopelvic parameters was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: mismatched, or pelvic incidence (PI) minus lumbar lordosis (LL) ≥ 10°; and balanced, or PI-LL < 10°. Within the two groups, the patients were further classified by BMI (< 30 and ≥ 30 kg/m2). Patients were then evaluated for surgery for ASD, matched by BMI and PI-LL parameters.RESULTSA total of 190 patients met inclusion criteria (72 males and 118 females, mean age 59.57 ± 12.39 years). The average follow-up was 40.21 ± 20.42 months (range 24–135 months). In total, 24 patients (12.63% of 190) underwent surgery for ASD. Within the entire cohort, 82 patients were in the mismatched group, and 108 patients were in the balanced group. Within the mismatched group, adjacent-segment surgeries occurred at the following rates: BMI < 30 kg/m2, 2.1% (1/48); and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, 17.6% (6/34). Significant differences were seen between patients with BMI ≥ 30 and BMI < 30 (p = 0.018). A receiver operating characteristic curve for BMI as a predictor for ASD was established, with an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.49–0.90). The optimal BMI cutoff value determined by the Youden index is 29.95 (sensitivity 0.857; specificity 0.627). However, in the balanced PI-LL group (108/190 patients), there was no difference in surgery rates for ASD among the patients with different BMIs (p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONSIn patients who have a PI-LL mismatch, obesity may be associated with an increased risk of surgery for ASD after TLIF, but in obese patients without PI-LL mismatch, this association was not observed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document