Nerve root anomalies: implications for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery and a review of the Neidre and Macnab classification system

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. E9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane M. Burke ◽  
Mina G. Safain ◽  
James Kryzanski ◽  
Ron I. Riesenburger
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Root ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Neurogenic Claudication ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Nerve Root ◽  
History Of ◽  
Mini Open

Lumbar nerve root anomalies are uncommon phenomena that must be recognized to avoid neural injury during surgery. The authors describe 2 cases of nerve root anomalies encountered during mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. One anomaly was a confluent variant not previously classified; the authors suggest that this variant be reflected in an amendment to the Neidre and Macnab classification system. They also propose strategies for identifying these anomalies and avoiding injury to anomalous nerve roots during TLIF surgery. Case 1 involved a 68-year-old woman with a 2-year history of neurogenic claudication. An MR image demonstrated L4–5 stenosis and spondylolisthesis and an L-4 nerve root that appeared unusually low in the neural foramen. During a mini-open TLIF procedure, a nerve root anomaly was seen. Six months after surgery this patient was free of neurogenic claudication. Case 2 involved a 60-year-old woman with a 1-year history of left L-4 radicular pain. Both MR and CT images demonstrated severe left L-4 foraminal stenosis and focal scoliosis. Before surgery, a nerve root anomaly was not detected, but during a unilateral mini-open TLIF procedure, a confluent nerve root was identified. Two years after surgery, this patient was free of radicular pain.

“Pin Method” for Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Chun Huang
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Skin Incision ◽  
Neurogenic Claudication ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neural Structure ◽  
Oriented Parallel ◽  
Blind Spots

Abstract Background Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a cage can have a similar fusion rate as minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or open lumbar interbody fusion. Direct visual control during cage insertion is the key to prevent neural structure incarceration in endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. Creating a track with any kind of retractor or cannula for cage insertion under fluoroscopic guidance is not safe enough, because the retractor and cannula can create many blind spots and can displace during cage insertion. Method The pin method utilizes two flexible metallic guide pins inserted from the skin incision through the annulotomy site into the disk space until the anterior longitudinal ligament is reached under direct endoscopic monitoring. The two guide pins could be oriented parallel or perpendicular or even reduce to one or increase to many as needed to serve as a sliding track and a see-through barrier to prevent neural incarceration. Results and Conclusion Two cases of L4/L5 grade 2 spondylolisthesis with neurogenic claudication were treated with endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with 1-year follow-up, and the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D, %) score, and modified Macnab score all improved greatly in both. The author developed an original, cheap, accessible, and safe method called the “pin method,” which can be used in both full-endoscopic and biportal surgery and can apply to various approaches and has no limitation on the size and shape of the cage.

scholarly journals The feasibility for a novel minimally invasive surgery–percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a cadaveric experiment

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Yin ◽  
Yaoshen Zhang ◽  
Aixing Pan ◽  
Yi Ding ◽  
Liming Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Diseases ◽  
Articular Process ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

Abstract Background The objective of the study was to evaluate our innovative percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods Two fresh-frozen human cadavers with soft tissues were donated for the experiment. Both cadavers had no history of previous spine surgery. The PE-TLIF surgery was performed on 3 levels (L4-5 of the first one, and L3-4, L4-5 of the second one) in October 2015. The PE-TLIF technique mainly included the following aspects: primary guide pins and a specially designed superior articular process (SAP) guide insertion, working channel setup, endoscopic decompression and fusion, and pedicle screw implantation and fixation. Under the surveillance of C-arm fluoroscope, four primary guide pins were inserted. The inferior primary guide in the hypothetically symptomatic side was confirmed as the first guide pin. At the end of the first guide pin, the specially designed SAP guide was installed. The secondary guide pin was inserted in the SAP via self-designed SAP guide. Under the protection cannula, part of the superior articular process was removed by oriented SAP resection device, so the working channel was smoothly put through the Kambin’s triangle. The endoscope was inserted close to the exiting nerve root. Rotation of the working channel kept the nerve root out of it. Results Three levels of PE-TLIF were successfully performed in two cadavers. Self-designed SAP guide made the secondary guide pin inserting the SAP accurately. Decompression was adequate and the traversing nerve root was relieved. Three aimed intervertebral levels are implanted with two 7-mm-high PEEK cages and one expandable cage. The expandable cage could be adjusted from 8 mm to 13 mm. Surgical incisions included four 15 mm incisions for percutaneous screw fixation and one 12 mm incision for working channel. There was no nerve injury during the operations. Conclusions Our present results showed that the novel minimally invasive surgery PE-TLIF was feasible for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Intraoperative electromyography monitoring in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajesh K. Bindal ◽  
Subrata Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Neurological Complication ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Lateral Wall ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Active Monitoring

Object Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an increasingly popular method for achieving lumbar decompression and fusion. The procedure is technically more demanding than open fusion, with correspondingly more theoretical risk of complication. The authors describe the use of intraoperative electromyography (EMG) as an adjunct to surgery to reduce the risk of complications. Methods Between August 2005 and April 2006, 25 consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive TLIF in which a total of 105 pedicle screws were placed. Intraoperative EMG was performed and included passive recordings during decompression and interbody graft placement, as well as active recording during the placement of the pedicle access needle and testing of the pedicle tap. A uniform protocol for active monitoring was used, with the pedicle access needle set at 7 mA. To assess hardware placement, all patients underwent postoperative radiography and 20 underwent postoperative computed tomography (CT) scanning. In no patient did the authors observe significant EMG activation during decompression. In five cases, intermittent nerve root firing was noted after the interbody graft was placed, but this did not correlate with any postoperative deficits. Using the active stimulation protocol, 76.2% of screw placements required one or more changes to the trajectory of the pedicle access needle. With successful placement of the pedicle access needle, in all 105 screws, the pedicle tap nerve root stimulation threshold was greater than 15 mA. Postoperative radiography was performed in all patients and CT scanning was performed in 20 patients (with 85 screws being placed). Postoperative imaging revealed only three cases of pedicle breach. In all cases, the breach was at the lateral wall of the pedicle and not thought to be clinically relevant. Conclusions A continuous stimulation pedicle access needle alerts the surgeon to incorrect medial trajectories and may lead to safer pedicle cannulation. As a result of electrophysiological feedback, the pedicle access needle trajectory was altered in 76.2% of the reported cases. The use of the authors’ protocol resulted in a 0% incidence of clinically relevant malpositioned hardware and a low overall neurological complication rate. Intraoperative nerve root monitoring is a useful adjunct to minimally invasive TLIF.

scholarly journals Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disorders: Mini-open TLIF and Corrective TLIF

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (7) ◽  
pp. 547-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahito HARA ◽  
Yusuke NISHIMURA ◽  
Yasuhiro NAKAJIMA ◽  
Daisuke UMEBAYASHI ◽  
Masaya TAKEMOTO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Disorders ◽  
Mini Open

Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 560-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Michael Y. Wang ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mini Open

Object As minimally invasive approaches gain popularity in spine surgery, clinical outcomes and effectiveness of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with traditional open TLIF have yet to be established. The authors retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients who underwent mini–open TLIF with those who underwent open TLIF. Methods Between 2003 and 2006, 42 patients underwent TLIF for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis; 21 patients underwent mini–open TLIF and 21 patients underwent open TLIF. The mean age in each group was 53 years, and there was no statistically significant difference in age between the groups (p = 0.98). Data were collected perioperatively. In addition, complications, length of stay (LOS), fusion rate, and modified Prolo Scale (mPS) scores were recorded at routine intervals. Results No patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 24 months for the mini-open group and 34 months for the open group. The mean estimated blood loss was 194 ml for the mini-open group and 505 ml for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 3 days for the mini-open group and 5.5 days for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean mPS score improved from 11 to 19 in the mini-open group and from 10 to 18 in the open group; there was no statistically significant difference in mPS score improvement between the groups (p = 0.19). In the mini-open group there were 2 cases of transient L-5 sensory loss, 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision, and 1 case of cage migration that required revision. In the open group there was 1 case of radiculitis as well as 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision. One patient in the mini-open group developed a pseudarthrosis that required reoperation, and all patients in the open group exhibited fusion. Conclusions Mini–open TLIF is a viable alternative to traditional open TLIF with significantly reduced estimated blood loss and LOS. However, the authors found a higher incidence of hardware-associated complications with the mini–open TLIF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document