Incidence, etiology, classification, and management of neuralgia after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery in 226 patients

Krishna, Manoj; Pollock, Raymond; Bhatia, Chandra

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2006.09.004

Cited by 45 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25,26 The latter safeguard has been shown to reduce the risk of neurologic injury after PLIF. 27 This was apparent in our study, where fewer neurologic complications were observed after LI-PLIF (Table 5). Enhanced visualization of neural anatomy with bilateral total facetectomy also facilitates identification of rare anomalies such as conjoined nerve roots.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Significantly Improved Outcomes With a Less Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Incorporating Total Facetectomy

Kasis

Marshman

Krishna

et al. 2009

Spine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical outcomes were significantly improved after both ST-PLIF and LI-PLIF. However, outcomes were significantly better after LI-PLIF than after ST-PLIF. Significantly shortened hospital stay with LI-PLIF probably reflected the "less invasive" technique per se. Significantly better clinical outcomes with fewer complications after LI-PLIF, however, potentially reflected maneuvers singular to LI-PLIF: (1) preservation of posterior elements, (2) avoidance of far lateral dissection over the transverse processes, (3) bilateral total facetectomy, (4) fewer neurologic complications, and (5) avoidance of iliac crest autograft. LI-PLIF is therefore recommended over ST-PLIF.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Significantly Improved Outcomes With a Less Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Incorporating Total Facetectomy

Kasis

Marshman

Krishna

et al. 2009

Spine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With an extensive posterior decompression, there is a risk of instability and subsequent pseudarthrosis. Furthermore, there is a real risk of posterior extrusion of the graft that may cause neural damage [58, 59]. …”

Section: Biomechanical Advantages and Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches

Cole

McCall

Schmidt

et al. 2009

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

216

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors review and compare posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A review of the literature is performed wherein the history, indications for surgery, surgical procedures with their respective biomechanical advantages, potential complications, and grafting substances are presented. Along with the technical advancements and improvements in grafting substances, the indications and use of PLIF and TLIF have increased. The rate of arthrodesis has been shown to increase given placement of bone graft along the weight-bearing axis. The fusion rate across the disc space is further enhanced with the placement of posterior pedicle screw–rod constructs and the application of an osteoinductive material. The chief advantages of the TLIF procedure compared with the PLIF procedure included a decrease in potential neurological injury, improvement in lordotic alignment given graft placement within the anterior column, and preservation of posterior column integrity through minimizing lamina, facet, and pars dissection.

show abstract

“…Interbody fusion may also be performed using a posterior-only approach, such as a posterior (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). PLIF and TLIF reliably improve clinical results and have the advantage of avoiding the anterior approach but may risk epidural scarring and radiculitis [3][4][5][6]. Posterior lumbar surgery has also been shown to adversely affect the posterior paraspinal muscles in experimental and human studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Buttermann

Thorson

Mullin³

2013

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare single-level circumferential spinal fusion using pedicle (n = 27) versus low-profile minimally invasive facet screw (n = 35) posterior instrumentation. Method A prospective two-arm cohort study with 5-year outcomes as follow-up was conducted. Assessment included back and leg pain, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain medication usage, self-assessment of procedure success, and [1-year postoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging. Results Significantly less operative time, estimated blood loss and costs were incurred for the facet group. Clinical improvement was significant for both groups (p \ 0.01 for all outcomes scales). Outcomes were significantly better for back pain and ODI for the facet relative to the pedicle group at follow-up periods [1 year (p \ 0.05). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging found that 20 % had progressive adjacent disc degeneration, and posterior muscle changes tended to be greater for the pedicle screw group. Conclusion One-level circumferential spinal fusion using facet screws proved superior to pedicle screw instrumentation.

show abstract

Incidence, etiology, classification, and management of neuralgia after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery in 226 patients

Cited by 45 publications

References 7 publications

Significantly Improved Outcomes With a Less Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Incorporating Total Facetectomy

Significantly Improved Outcomes With a Less Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Incorporating Total Facetectomy

Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches

Outcomes of posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation of circumferential fusion: a cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About