Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for grade II spondylolisthesis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cai HX
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583158 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for grade II spondylolisthesis.
Cai Hong-xin HX Fan Shun-wu SW Zhang Jian-feng JF Ma Jian-jun JJ
Orthopaedic surgery 20150201 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:It is unclear whether using artificial cages increases fusion rates compared with use of bone chips alone in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. We hypothesized artificial cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion would provide better clinical and radiographic outcomes than bone chips alone. We assumed solid fusion would provide good clinical outcomes. We clinically and radiographically followed 34 patients with spondylolisthesis having posterior lumbar interbody fusion with mixed autogenous and allogeneic bone chips alone and 42 patients having posterior lumbar interbody fusion with implantation of artificial cages packed with morselized bone graft. Patients with the artificial cage had better functional improvement in the Oswestry disability index than those with bone chips alone, whereas pain score, patient satisfaction, and fusion rate were similar in the two groups. Postoperative disc height ratio, slip ratio, and segmental lordosis all decreased at final followup in the patients with bone chips alone but remained unchanged in the artificial cage group. The functional outcome correlated with radiographic fusion status. We conclude artificial cages provide better functional outcomes and radiographic improvement than bone chips alone in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis, although both techniques achieved comparable fusion rates.Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC2628248 | biostudies-other
Project description:The incidence of symptomatic adjacent segment pathology (ASP) after fusion surgery for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) has been reported to be relatively low compared with other lumbar disease entities. However, there has been no study of symptomatic ASP incidence using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screw instrumentation. We investigated the incidence of symptomatic ASP after PLIF with pedicle screw instrumentation for adult low-grade IS and identified significant risk factors for symptomatic ASP. We retrospectively studied records of 40 consecutive patients who underwent PLIF with pedicle screw instrumentation at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kansai Rosai Hospital, Amagasaki, Japan. The patients were followed for ≥ 4 years. Patients' medical records were retrospectively examined for evidence of symptomatic ASP. Age at time of surgery, sex, fusion level, whole lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, preexisting laminar inclination angle, and facet tropism at the cranial fusion segment were analyzed to identify risk factors for symptomatic ASP. Four patients (ASP group) developed symptomatic ASP at the cranial segment adjacent to the fusion. There were no significant differences in age, sex, fusion level, lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, or facet tropism at the cranial segment adjacent to the fusion between the ASP and the non-ASP groups. In contrast, laminar inclination angle at the cranial vertebra adjacent to the fusion was significantly higher in the ASP group than in the non-ASP group. Four patients (10%) developed symptomatic ASP after PLIF with transpedicular fixation for adult low-grade IS. Preexisting laminar horizontalization at the cranial vertebra adjacent to the fusion was a significant risk factor for symptomatic ASP.
| S-EPMC3854583 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.
| S-EPMC7877595 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6583231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p > 0.05).ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation.The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.
| S-EPMC6939115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods This study compared 24 patients undergoing TLIF and 32 patients undergoing PLF with instrumentation. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain, physical component summary (PCS) of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic parameters included slippage of the vertebra, local disk lordosis, the anterior and posterior disk height, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic parameters. Results The improvement of VAS of leg pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF unilaterally (3.4 versus 1.0; p = 0.02). The improvement of VAS of low back pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF (3.8 versus 2.2; p = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in improvement of ODI or PCS between TLIF and PLF. Reduction of slippage and the postoperative disk height was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF. There was no significant difference in local disk lordosis, lumbar lordosis, or pelvic parameters. The fusion rate was 96% in TLIF and 84% in PLF (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference in fusion rate, estimated blood loss, adjacent segmental degeneration, or complication rate. Conclusions TLIF was superior to PLF in reduction of slippage and restoring disk height and might provide better improvement of leg pain. However, the health-related outcomes were not significantly different between the two procedures.
| S-EPMC4369196 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundControversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis.MethodsA consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS.ResultsSixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was <21°, and loss of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°.ConclusionsWhile group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique.
| S-EPMC9386101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. CLINICAL QUESTION: Do more adult patients affected by low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis have significant clinical and radiological improvement following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) than those who receive posterolateral fusion (PLF)? METHODS: One hundred and fourteen patients affected by adult low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion or posterolateral fusion, were reviewed. Clinical outcome was assessed by means of the questionnaires ODI, RMDQ and VAS. Radiographic evaluation included CT, MRI, and x-rays. The results were analyzed using the Student t-test. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and surgical characteristics. At an average follow-up of 62.1 months, 71 patients were completely reviewed. Mean ODI, RMDQ and VAS scores didn't show statistically significant differences. Fusion rate was similar between the two groups (97% in PLIF group, 95% in PLF group). Major complications occurred in 5 of 71 patients reviewed (7%): one in the PLIF group (3.6%), four in the PLF group (9.3%). Pseudarthrosis occurred in one case in the PLIF group (3,6%) and in two cases in PLF group (4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, there does not appear to be a clear advantage of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) over posterolateral fusion (PLF) in terms of clinical and radiological outcome for treatment of adult low grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.
| S-EPMC3609004 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundLumbosacral orthoses (LSOs) are used as standard care after lumbar fusion surgery though their efficacy is unknown. The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled study was to elucidate the clinical and radiographic efficacies of LSO treatment in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) of less than 3 segments.MethodsSeventy-three patients who underwent PLIF were randomly allocated to 3 groups: 1 with custom-made LSO with metallic stays (C group); 1 with ready-made LSO without metallic stays (R group), and 1 without LSO (N group). The patients in the C and R groups were instructed to wear LSO postoperatively for 3 months. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, JOA-back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 100-mm visual analog scale for low back pain. Radiographic evaluation included intervertebral fusion rates and loss of correction postoperatively at 2 years.ResultsA significant difference in the clinical outcomes was observed only for the lumbar dysfunction domain of JOABPEQ postoperatively at 1 month (N vs C groups; 45% vs 10%, P = .03). Radiographic outcomes were not different between the groups.ConclusionsNo effect of orthosis treatment for less than 3 segments in PLIF was observed on clinical and radiographic outcomes. The type of orthosis also did not influence the outcomes. These results suggest that the use of LSO for PLIF can be simplified or is omissible except in patients with severe osteoporosis.
| S-EPMC6485872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RGTLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF).MethodsUsing data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).ResultsAmong the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185).ConclusionOur findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.
| S-EPMC8021835 | biostudies-literature