Journals / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2018 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 3

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Lumbosacral Spine Degenerative Diseases. A Retrospective Database of 40 Consecutive Cases and Literature Review

Pages
454–461
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation is an excellent choice for selected patients suffering from symptomatic degenerative lumbosacral spine disease, especially secondary to recurrent disc herniations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To report our results about minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, in patients with degenerative lumbosacral spine disease.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To describe the indications, surgical technique and results of a consecutive series of 40 patients who had undergone MI-TLIF.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation is an excellent choice for selected patients suffering from symptomatic degenerative lumbosacral spine disease, especially secondary to recurrent disc herniations.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

AIM: To report our results about minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, in patients with degenerative lumbosacral spine disease. To describe the indications, surgical technique and results of a consecutive series of 40 patients who had undergone MI-TLIF. Despite the limited number of clinical studies, published data suggest tremendous potential advantages of this technique. MATERIAL and METHODS: Forty patients with radiological findings of degenerative lumbosacral spine disease had undergone MI-TLIF between July 2012 and January 2015. Clinical outcomes were assessed by means of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Health Survey Scoring (SF36) before surgery and at first year follow-up. Furthermore, the following parameters were retrospectively reviewed: age, sex, working activity, body mass index (BMI), type of degenerative disease, number of levels of fusion, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Average operative time was 230 minutes, mean estimated blood loss 170 mL, average length of hospital stay 5 days. The ODI improved from a score of 59, preoperatively, to post-operative score of 20 at first year follow-up. Average SF36 score increased from 36 to 54 (Physical Health) and from 29 to 50 (Mental Health) at first year outcome evaluation. CONCLUSION: MI-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation is an excellent choice for selected patients suffering from symptomatic degenerative lumbosacral spine disease, especially secondary to recurrent disc herniations.

🔖

Cite This Article

RICCI, A. (2022). Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Lumbosacral Spine Degenerative Diseases. A Retrospective Database of 40 Consecutive Cases and Literature Review. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 3, 454–461. https://ajindex.com/articles/616956

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Choi UY, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE: Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 35(2):E11, 2013 2. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA: Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499-517, 2002 3. Gala VC, Haid RW Jr: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. In: Sandhu FA, Voyadzis JM, Fessler RG (eds). Decision Making in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. New York: Thieme, 2011:91-101 4. Harms J, Rolinger H: A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: Dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343-347,1982 (In German) 5. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E6, 2006 6. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L, Fessler RG: Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98-105, 2002 7. Jhala A, Singh D, Mistry M: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Results of 23 consecutive cases. Indian J Orthop 48(6):562-567, 2014 8. Lee CK, Park JY, Zhang HY: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a single interbody cage and a tubular retraction system: Technical tips, and perioperative, radiologic and clinical outcomes. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 48:219-224, 2010 9. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB: Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265- 2270, 2012 10. Lee P, Fessler RG: Perioperative and postoperative complications of single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly adults. J Clin Neurosci 19(1):111-114, 2012 11. Mummaneni P, Lu D, Chi J: Minimally incisional transforaminal interbody fusion. In: Resnick D, Haid R, Wang J (eds). Surgical Management of Low Back Pain. New York: Thieme, 2009:110- 116 12. Pelton MA, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. In: Vaccaro AR, Bono CM (ed). Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. New York: Informa Healthcare, 2014:237-244 13. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB: Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine