scholarly journals Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 222-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guang-Xun LIN ◽  
Chun-Kun PARK ◽  
Jung-Woo HUR ◽  
Jin-Sung KIM
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals COMPLICATIONS IN THREE LUMBAR ARTHRODESIS TECHNIQUES: TLIF, MITLIF, PLIF

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
AVELINO AGUILAR MERLO ◽  
RICARDO ROJAS BECERRIL ◽  
MARIO LORETO LUCAS ◽  
SHEILA PATRICIA VÁZQUEZ ARTEAGA
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spine Surgeon ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Incidental Durotomy ◽  
Invasive Techniques

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion has fewer complications of chronic lumbar instability compared with traditional open techniques. Methods: Retrospective, observational study of 132 patients with grade I and II lumbar spondylolisthesis with advanced disc degeneration. Forty-five patients operated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF), 45 patients operated by posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and 42 patients operated by open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Results: Four patients had incidental durotomy, two in the TLIF group and two in the PLIF group. There were no cases of incidental durotomy in the minimally invasive transforaminal access group. No patient in the study presented an inadequate screw position, the lowest mean bleeding occurred in the group of minimally invasive instrumentation of one and two levels. There were 6.6% of infections for PLIF group and none in the other two groups. Conclusions: Arthrodesis techniques are not free of complications, however, the frequency is lower with minimally invasive techniques. Nonetheless, it requires training and does not dispense the need for a learning curve for the spine surgeon compared to open lumbar fusion techniques.

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.

Incidence of graft extrusion following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Bakhsheshian ◽  
Ryan Khanna ◽  
Winward Choy ◽  
Cort D. Lawton ◽  
Alex T. Nixon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Graft Extrusion
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document