Fusion via transpsoas lateral approach: considerations and initial results

Oliveira, Daniel De Abreu; Fernandez, Jonatas Sanchez; Falcon, Roberto Sakamoto; Menezes, Cristiano Magalhães

doi:10.1590/s1808-18512014130300r94

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3] Biomechanical features of LLIF constructions provide better rigidity than other constructions. 4,5 It uses large diameter, hollow spacers that can engage the peripheral margins of the endplate, the design and positioning of which seems to be superior to others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Which Patients Is It Possible to Perform Standalone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Without Cage Subsidence?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify the factors related to the non-occurrence of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Methods: Case-control study of single level standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) including 86 cases. Patients without cage subsidence composed the control group (C), while those in the subsidence group (S) developed cage subsidence. Preoperative data were examined to create a risk score based on correlation factors with S group. The proven risk factors were part of an evaluation score. Results: Of the 86 cases included, 72 were in group C and 14 in group S. The following risk factors were more prevalent in group S compared to C group: spondylolisthesis (93% vs 18%; p<0.001); scoliosis (31% vs 12%; p=0.033); women (79% vs 38%; p=0.007); older patients (average 57.0 vs 68.4 years; p=0.001). These risk factors were used in a score (0-4) to evaluate the risk in each case. The patients with higher risk scores had greater subsidence (p<0.001). Scores ≥2 were predictive of subsidence with 92% sensitivity and 72% specificity. Conclusions: It was possible to correlate the degree of subsidence in standalone LLIF procedures using demographic (age and gender) and pathological (spondylolisthesis and scoliosis) data. With a score based on risk factors and considering any score <2, the probability of non-occurrence of subsidence following standalone LLIF (negative predictive value) was 98%. (93% vs. 18%; p < 0,001); escoliose (31% vs. 12%; p = 0,033); mulheres (79% vs. 38%; p = 0,007); pacientes idosos (média de 57,0 vs. 68,4 anos; p = 0,001 (93% vs. 18%, p <0,001); escoliosis (31% vs. 12%, p = 0,033); mujeres (79% vs. 38%, p = 0,007); ancianos (media de 57,0 a 68,4 años; p = 0,001

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Which Patients Is It Possible to Perform Standalone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Without Cage Subsidence?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics

Lehmen¹,

Gerber²

2015

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Employee Medical Leave in Mis-Tlif or Open-Tlif in Elective Surgery in Brazil

LIMA,

FERRER,

FERRER

et al. 2023

Coluna/Columna

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the effects of the two techniques (minimally invasive transforaminal inter somatic lumbar fusion [MIS-TLIF] and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF]) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. The outcomes investigated were: intensity of low back pain, functional disability of the lumbar spine, discharge time, return to work, lumbar lordosis angle, cost of individual sources due to the period of work-related absenteeism, and societal perspective costs in the treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative disease. The data was obtained through the analysis of data contained in the electronic medical records of 100 patients who underwent one of the two surgical techniques from January 2019 to May 2021 in a High Complexity Orthopedic Surgery. The outcomes investigated were set 12 months postoperatively. Results: No statistical differences were observed in terms of sex, age, employment, and diagnosis grade between groups. MIS-TLIF was associated with significant improvement in the intensity of low back pain, functional disability of the lumbar spine, discharge time, return to work, cost of individual sources due to the period of work-related absenteeism, and societal perspective costs. The variation in the lumbar lordosis angle of the MIS-TLIF group was smaller when compared to TLIF. Conclusion: Considering that MIS-TLIF was achieved with satisfactory short-term improvements, it may be used as an alternative strategy to TLIF to promote clinical and economical improvements in treating lumbar degenerative disease. Level of Evidence III; Comparative Retrospective Study.

show abstract

Fusion via transpsoas lateral approach: considerations and initial results

Cited by 4 publications

References 44 publications

In Which Patients Is It Possible to Perform Standalone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Without Cage Subsidence?

In Which Patients Is It Possible to Perform Standalone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Without Cage Subsidence?

MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics

Employee Medical Leave in Mis-Tlif or Open-Tlif in Elective Surgery in Brazil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About