全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Standardizing MI-TLIF, a Proposal for a Reproducible Technique

DOI: 10.4236/ojmn.2024.142010, PP. 91-103

Keywords: MITLIF, Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Technique, Pain Relief and Disability

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is a widely known and performed technique, however its versatility among different physicians continues to hinder its replication and results. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a step-by-step surgical guide to perform a safe MI-TLIF, based on the results obtained in patients operated on by a single surgeon over a period of 12 years. Patients and methods: A retrospective, single center, longitudinal, and observational cohort study was conducted with 931 patients who underwent MI TLIF by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2022 using the technique described on this paper, each with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Criteria included Schizas classification, listhesis according to Meyerding classification, number of levels treated, cage size, and complications (screw repositioning or cerebrospinal fluid leak). Patient clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pre- and postoperative radicular pain. Thin slice CT scans were used to assess the progression of the fusion using the Bridwell classification. In the statistical analysis, percentages, median, and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Results: Nine hundred and thirty one patients underwent MI TLIF using the technique described, eight hundred and eighty (94.5%) had a single level treated and fifty one (5.5%) had a 2 level procedure (982 levels), an 8mm cage was placed on five hundred and seventeenlevels (52.7%), six hundred and sixty three levels(67.6%) achieved grade I fusion, two hundred and sixty six levels (27.1%) achieved grade II fusion, 52 levels (5.3) achieved grade III fusion and one level (0.1) achieved a grade IV fusion or non-union. Revision surgery was performed on 3 patients (0.3%) for screw repositioning, cerebrospinal fluid leak was present on 2 patients during surgery and treated before closure. VAS scores and ODI were improved at 12 months postop (VAS from 8.70 to 2.30 and ODI from 34.2 to 14.1, (p = 0.001). Conclusions: The MI TLIF technique described could be a safe and easy to replicate way to achieved lumbar interbody fusion, providingclinical and radiological benefits.

References

[1]  Cloward, R.B. (1953) The Treatment of Ruptured Lumbar Intervertebral Discs by Vertebral Body Fusion. I. Indications, Operative Technique, after Care. Journal of Neurosurgery, 10, 154-168.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
[2]  Harms, J. and Rolinger, H. (1982) A One-Stager Procedure in Operative Treatment of Spondylolistheses: Dorsal Traction-Reposition and Anterior Fusion. Z OrthopIhre Grenzgeb, 120, 343-347. (in German)
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1051624
[3]  Khoo, L., Palmer, S., Laich, D., et al. (2002) Percutaneous Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaveric Pre-Clinical Study and Preliminary Case Series. Neurosurgery, 51, 200-210.
[4]  Foley, K.T., Lefkowitz, M.A. and James, S. (2002) Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion. Spine, 28, S26-S35.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E
[5]  Kim, C.H., Easley, K., Lee, J.S., Hong, J.Y., Virk, M., Hsieh, P.C., et al. (2020) Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion. Global Spine Journal, 10, 143-150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219882344
[6]  Phan, K., Rao, P.J., Kam, A.C. and Mobbs, R.J. (2015) Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Spine Journal, 24, 1017-1030.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4
[7]  Hammad, A., Wirries, A., Ardeshiri, A., Nikiforov, O. and Geiger, F. (2019) Open versus Minimally Invasive TLIF: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14, Article No. 229.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1266-y
[8]  Houten, J.K., Post, N.H., Dryer, J.W., et al. (2006) Clinical and Radiographically/ Neuroimaging Documented Outcome in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurosurg Focus, 20, E8.
https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2006.20.3.9
[9]  Chen, X., Lin, G.-X., Rui, G., Chen, C.-M., Kotheeranurak, V., Wu, H.-J. & Zhang, H.-L. (2022) Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Pain Research, 15, 41-52.
https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S329162
[10]  Villavicencio, A., Nelson, E.L., Rajpal, S., Vivek, N. and Burneikiene, S. (2019) The Impact of BMI on Operating Room Time, Blood Loss, and Hospital Stay in Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 179, 19-22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.02.012
[11]  Holly, L.T., Schwender, J.D., Rouben, D.P., et al. (2006) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Technique, and Complications. Neurosurg Focus, 20, E6.
https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2006.20.3.7
[12]  Rezk, E.M.A., Elkholy, A.R. and Shamhoot, E.A. (2019) Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody fusion (PLIF) in the Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery, 34, Article No. 26.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41984-019-0052-9
[13]  Kim, J.S., Jung, B. and Lee, S.H. (2012) Instrumented Minimally Invasive Spinal-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF); Minimum 5-Years Follow-Up with Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes. Clinical Spine Surgery, 31, E302-E309.
[14]  Mobbs, R.J., Phan, K., Malham, G., Seex, K. and Rao, P.J. (2015) Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Indications and Comparison of Interbody Fusion Options Including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. Journal of Spine Surgery, 1, 2-18.
[15]  Lener, S., Wipplinger, C., Hernandez, R.N., Hussain, I., Kirnaz, S. and Navarro, R.R. (2020) Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide. Global Spine Journal, 10, 151-167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219882346
[16]  Lee, C.K., Park, J.Y. and Zhang, H.Y. (2010) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Single Interbody Cage and a Tubular Retraction System: Technical Tips, and Perioperative, Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 48, 219-224.
https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2010.48.3.219
[17]  Wong, A.P., Smith, Z.A., Stadler, J.A., Hu, X.Y., Yan, J.Z., Li, X.F., Lee, J.H. and Khoo, L.T. (2014) Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): Surgical Technique, Long-Term 4-Year Prospective Outcomes, and Complications Compared with an Open TLIF Cohort. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 25, 279-304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.007
[18]  Mooney, J., Michalopoulos, G.D., Alvi, M.A., Zeitouni, D., Chan, A.K., Mummaneni, P.V., et al. (2021) Minimally Invasive versus Open Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Matched Study Investigating Patient-Reported and Surgical Outcomes. Journal of Neurosurgery, 36, 753-766.
https://doi.org/10.3171/2021.10.SPINE211128
[19]  Ramírez-León, J.F., Alonso-Cuéllar, G.O., Ramírez-Martínez, C., Rugeles-Ortiz, J.G. (2019) Impacto de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en cirugía de columna. Medicina, 41, 145-155.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133