Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and traditional posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion in obese patients with lumbar disk prolapse

Wang, Yapeng; An, Jilong; Sun, Yapeng; Ding, Wenyuan; Shen, Yong; Zhang, Wei

doi:10.2147/tcrm.s117063

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Standalone OLIF inpatients with mild lumbar spondylolisthesis could be associated with a concern about complications, especially cage subsidence. Based on the present study, a T score warning line of <− 2.5 or body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m 2 could be associated with worse outcomes of standalone OLIF [19]. Of course, cage subsidence may occur after OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation as well, but theoretically pedicle screw fixation could add more protection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis

Sun

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or combined OLIF between 07/2014 and 08/2017 at two hospitals in China. Direct decompressions were not performed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, anterior/posterior disc heights (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, fusion rate, and complications were analyzed. All imaging examinations were read independently by two physicians and the mean measurements were used for analysis. Results: A total of 73 patients were included: 32 with standalone OLIF and 41 with combined OLIF. The total complication rate was 25.0% with standalone OLIF and 26.8% with combined OLIF. There were no differences in VAS and ODI scores by 2 years of follow-up, but the scores were better with standalone OLIF at 1 week and 3 months (P < 0.05). PDH and FW was smaller in the combined OLIF group compared with the standalone OLIF group before and after surgery (all P < 0.05). There were significant differences in FH before surgery and at 1 week and 3 months between the two groups (all P < 0.05), but the difference disappeared by 2 years (P = 0.111). Cage subsidence occurred in 7.3% (3/41) and 7.3% (3/41) of the patients at 3 and 24 months, respectively, in the combined OLIF group, compared with 6.3% (2/32) and 15.6% (5/32), respectively, in the standalone OLIF group at the same time points (P = 0.287). There was no cage retropulsion in both groups at 2 years. The fusion rate was 85.4%(35/41) in the combined OLIF group and 84.4% (27/32) in the standalone OLIF group at 3 months(P = 0.669). At 24 months, the fusion rate was 100.0% in the combined OLIF group and 93.8% (30/32) in the standalone OLIF group (P = 0.066).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis

Sun

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reducing the need for retraction of the nerve root and thecal sac, avoiding the need and risk to enter the abdominal cavity, preserving the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments, not devitalizing adjacent soft tissues, allowing the disc space to be accessed unilaterally, and preserving the contralateral facet complex are strategies that might enhance outcome. In addition, decreased blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, decreased hospital stay, lower infections rates, [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] and possibly decreased degeneration of the adjacent spinal levels would be expected to offer further refinement of therapeutic intent. 32 The stated goal of the MIS-TLIF approach is fusion of the painful segments; this has been reported to be equivalent to corresponding open procedures 26,[33][34][35][36][37][38] with fusion rates consistently over 90% when using rh-BMP-2 (InFUSE).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Viable Allograft: 75 Consecutive Cases at 12-Month Follow-up

2018

Int J Spine Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: When conservative treatments fail to alleviate the discomfort of abnormal motion, spinal fusion has been shown to provide symptomatic treatment for spinal instability, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and symptomatic degenerative disc disease. The trend and rates of fusion over the past few years have been dramatic in the United States. Accompanying that higher incidence has been the shifting from traditional open surgery to minimally invasive techniques to reduce scar tissue formation, extent of muscle stripping, and muscle retraction which all have been shown to adversely affect outcomes. Other reasons supporting the widespread transition to minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques include decreased postoperative pain, decreased intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, faster return to normal activity, and reduced reoperation rates. Spinal fusion procedures rely on a bony fusion substrate in addition to fixation hardware. While available grafting options include autogenous, allogeneic, and synthetic materials, recent interest in viable allograft material with living cells has drawn attention and attraction for incorporating a biologic basis for regenerative consideration. A recent viable allograft, complete with cellular and designated bone carrier (VIA Graft, Vivex Biomedical, Marietta, Georgia) has been developed. This study represents a retrospective review of a single-practice, single-surgeon evaluation of the product in 75 consecutive patients for fusion by computed tomography (CT) and radiographic evaluation at 12 months in conjunction with a MIS approach. Viable allograft was used to fill the peri-implant space, and central implant lumen was filled with a cancellous bone sponge soaked in perivertebral bone marrow. Posterolateral supplementation was attained with beta-tricalcium phosphate as a bulking agent.Methods: A retrospective review identified patients treated for both primary and revision surgery who received VIA Graft cellular bone matrix material in minimally invasive interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with a minimum of 12month follow up. The patient diagnoses included radiculopathy in all instances and varied collateral indications such as foraminal collapse, recurrent disc herniation, and spondylolisthesis to which pain and morbidity had been unresolved by conservative treatment. Adverse events including infection, revisions, and evidence of immune response were evaluated and patient comorbidities defined for the entire population of patients. Patient fusion status was assessed using thin slice CT by 2 independent radiologists separate from the surgeon. There were 75 consecutive adult patients with degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine who underwent MIS-TLIF surgery of which 40 (53%) were male and 35 (47%) were female. Mean age, height, and weight were 58 years, 170.18 cm (67 in), and 88.45 kg (195 lbs), respectively. The mean body mass index was 30. There were 16 patients (21%) who smoked and 12 (16%) with a history of diabetes. Independent blinded review of f...

show abstract

“…The PLIF requires an extensive dissection of the paraspinal tissue as well as prolonged soft tissue retraction (13). Other complications include significant perioperative bleeding, postoperative radiculopathy secondary to the prolonged retraction of the dural sac, dural tear, and postoperative muscular atrophy caused by denervation during the approach (4,14). Harms et al (15), described the TLIF as an alternative to PLIF.…”

Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of The Lumbar Fusion Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications on minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L2–L5 levels: a review of the literature and surgical strategies

Quillo-Olvera¹,

Lin²,

Jo³

et al. 2018

Ann. Transl. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fusion is the cornerstone in the treatment of an unstable degenerative lumbar spinal disease. Various techniques have been developed. Amongst these techniques exists the oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), which is the ante-psoas approach. Adequate restoration of disc height with large cages placed in the intervertebral space, indirect decompression, and correction of sagittal and coronal alignment can be achieved with OLIF procedure with the advantage of minimal risk for the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus. Nevertheless, this technique entails complications directly associated with the anatomical location where the fusion takes place. This surgical area is a window between the left lateral border of the aorta, or the left common iliac artery, and the anterior belly of the left psoas muscle. Vascular complications associated with the injury of the main vessels, segmental artery or iliolumbar vein of the lumbar spine have been reported, as well as urologic lesions due to ureter transgression, amongst others. Although these complications have been described in the literature, an article that complements this information with technical advice for its avoidance is yet to be published. This article is a review of the most frequent complications associated with the OLIF procedure in L2-L5 lumbar levels, as well as a description of technical strategies for the prevention of such complications.

show abstract

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and traditional posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion in obese patients with lumbar disk prolapse

Cited by 24 publications

References 18 publications

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Viable Allograft: 75 Consecutive Cases at 12-Month Follow-up

Complications on minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L2–L5 levels: a review of the literature and surgical strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About