scholarly journals Far-lateral Disc Herniation Treated by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion without Complete Fragment Excision: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Cureus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin M Haines ◽  
Rahul J Samtani ◽  
James T Bernatz ◽  
Mustafa Abugideiri ◽  
Joseph R O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Far Lateral ◽  
Lateral Disc Herniation ◽  
Fragment Excision

Delayed Abdominal Pseudohernia in Young Patient After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedure: Case Report

2016 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 671.e13-671.e16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Plata-Bello ◽  
Héctor Roldan ◽  
Liberto Brage ◽  
Aída Rahy ◽  
Víctor Garcia-Marin
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Young Patient ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Procedure ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Case Report and Technical Note

2020 ◽  
Vol 144 ◽  
pp. 170-177
Author(s):  
Nikolay L. Martirosyan ◽  
Juan S. Uribe ◽  
Blake M. Randolph ◽  
Russell I. Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: What Is the Evidence of Indirect Neural Decompression? A Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-154
Author(s):  
Matteo Formica ◽  
Emanuele Quarto ◽  
Andrea Zanirato ◽  
Lorenzo Mosconi ◽  
Davide Vallerga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Intraoperative Antepulsion of a Fusion Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Spine ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (17) ◽  
pp. E399-E402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio R. Proubasta ◽  
Enrique Q. Vallvé ◽  
Luis F. Aguilar ◽  
Carlos L. Villanueva ◽  
José J.D. Iglesias
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Fusion Cage

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. E11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Kudo ◽  
Ichiro Okano ◽  
Tomoaki Toyone ◽  
Akira Matsuoka ◽  
Hiroshi Maruyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dural Tears

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of revision interbody fusion surgery between lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with propensity score (PS) adjustments and to investigate the efficacy of indirect decompression with LLIF in previously decompressed segments on the basis of radiological assessment.METHODSA retrospective study of patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrence of neurological symptoms after posterior decompression surgery was performed. Postoperative complications and operative factors were evaluated and compared between LLIF and PLIF/TLIF. Moreover, postoperative improvement in cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen was evaluated in LLIF cases.RESULTSA total of 56 patients (21 and 35 cases of LLIF and PLIF/TLIF, respectively) were included. In the univariate analysis, the LLIF group had significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03) and neurological deficits (p = 0.042), whereas the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.02), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001). After PS adjustments, the LLIF group still showed significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03), and the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), EBL (p < 0.001), and operating time (p = 0.04). The PLIF/TLIF group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of SSI (p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference regarding improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the 2 surgical procedures (p = 0.77). The CSAs in the spinal canal and foramen were both significantly improved (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSLLIF is a safe, effective, and less invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates for revision surgery for previously decompressed segments. Therefore, LLIF can be an alternative to PLIF/TLIF for restenosis after posterior decompression surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document