Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and instruments. Prospective study with the minimum of 20-month follow-up

Česká verzia

Authors: P. Vaněk ¹; K. Saur ²
Authors place of work: Neurochirurgická klinika 1. LF UK a ÚVN Praha ¹; Neurochirurgické oddělení Masarykovy nemocnice, Ústí nad Labem ²
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2007; 70/103(5): 552-557
Category: Short Communication

Summary

Objective:
The objective of the study was prospective evaluation of the potential of TLIF for the therapy of istmical and degenerative low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis (grade one according to Meyerding) of lumbosacral (LS) spine.

Methods:
Based on informed approval, LS stabilisation using the TLIF technique was performed in 38 patients of which 34 (95%) met the study specifications. The interval between the surgery and the last check at an outpatient unit ranged between 20 and 36 months (24 months on an average). Twenty one patients (the first group) had a unilateral surgery without laminectomy, 13 patients (the second group) had a channel decompression surgery using laminectomy or partial laminectomy followed by unilateral TLIF. Only one interbody cage was always implanted, the cage being filled by autologous bone obtained in the access site. The subject of evaluation was the objective neurological picture, the pre-surgery and post-surgery Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as total intensity of pain expressed by the visual analogue score (VAS), and the total post-op satisfaction of the patients. After two years, a CT exam was performed to assess the intervertebral connection and the position of the screws.

Results:
Cases of statistically significant decrease in the mean values of scales pre and post-surgery were detected. The mean value for ODI decreased from 52.8 to 23.2 (p < 0.01) and from 47.2 to 25.5 (p < 0.01) in the first and in the second group, respectively. Similarly, there was a decrease in the VAS scale respectively from 7.7 to 3.6 (p < 0.01) and from 7.4 to 3.8 in the first and in the second group post-op (p<0.01). At the same time, no statistically significant difference between the results for the individual groups was found (p>0.05). On the whole, 132 transpedicular screws were implanted – the rate of extrapedicular screws was 5 % and 7 % for the first and second group, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of screw introduction (p>0.01). Good bone fusion was achieved in the first group in all the cases, while pseudoarthrosis was detected in one fused segment in the second group.

Conclusion:
The first group had slightly better clinical results, however, without this making a statistically significant difference. TLIF is a safe technique of stabilisation of LS spine, the risk of extrapedicular placement of the screw is not associated with the scope of the channel revision. One interbody cage filled with autologous bone from the access site is sufficient for obtaining quality interbody fusion. The clinical result does not correlate with the quality of bone fusion.

Key words:
spondylolisthesis – transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TILF) – radiological result

Zdroje

1. Cloward RB. Spondylolisthesis: The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion I. indication, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953; 10: 154-168.

2. Evans JH. Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop 1985; 193: 38-46.

3. Voor MJ, Mehta S, Wang M. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. J Spin Dis 1998; 11: 328-334.

4. Harms JG, Jeszensky D. The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 1998; 6: 88-99.

5. Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain: I. Aspects of the realiability and validity of the visual analoque scale. Pain 1983; 16: 87-101.

6. Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000; 25: 2940-2953.

7. Magerl F. Stabilization of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine with external skeletal fixation. In: Uhthoff HK, editors. Current concepts of external fixation fractures. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1982: 353.

8. Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluting results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 1986; 11: 601-606.

9. Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis-a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine 2000; 25: 1711-1715.

10. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT. Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 1997; 22: 2807-2812.

11. Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Amin-Hanjani S, Barker FG, Harrington JF, Magge SN. Prospective outcome evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2004; 1: 267-272.

12. Agazzi S Reverdin A., May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cage. An independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg 1999; 91(Suppl 1): S 92.

13. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: Two years results from Food and Drug Administration investigation device exception clinical trial. Spine 2000; 25:1437-1446.

14. Kettler A, Schmoelz W, Kast E, Gottwald M, Claes L, Wilke HJ. In vitro stabilizing effect of a transforaminal compared with two posterior lumbar interbody cages. Spine 2005; 30: 665-670.

15. Ames CP, Acosta FL, Chi J, Iyengar J, Muiru W, Acaroglu E, et al. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 nad 2 levels. Spine 2006; 31: 504.

16. Humpreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2001; 26 : 567-71.

17. Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hal JM, Polly DW, Kuklo TR. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiologiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18 : 337-346.

18. Miura Y, Imagama S, Yoda M, Mitsuguchi H, Kachi H. Is local bone viable as a source of bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion? Spine 2003; 28: 2386-2389.

19. Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Berteaux D. Vertebral osteosynthesis using metal plates. Its differenr uses. Chirurgie 1979; 105: 579-603.

20. Roy Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop 1986; 203: 7-17.

21. Castro WH, Halm H, Jerosch J, Malms J, Steinbeck J, Blasius S. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar vertebrae. Spine 1996; 21:1320-1324.

22. Gertzbein SD, Robbins SE. Accuracy of pedicukar screw placement in vivo. Spine 1990; 15: 11-14.

23. Schulze CJ, Munzinger E, Weber U. Clinical relevance of accuracy of pedicle screw placement. A computed tomographic-supported analysis. Spine 1998; 23: 2215-2220.

24. Odgers CJ, Vaccaro AR, Pollack ME, Cotler JM. Accuracy of pedicle placement with the assistance of lateral plain radiography. J Spinal Disord 1996; 9: 334-338.

25. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 887-894.