Tag: TLIF

Posted on

Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery

Brain and Spine 5 (2025) 104322

This study developed and internally validated the Expandable TLIF Subsidence Index (ETSI) to predict risk of cage subsidence after TLIF surgery with expandable spacers. Key risk factors include high ASA score, non-degenerative indication, lower lumbar levels, small cage size, and posterior cage position.

• A risk score (Expandable TLIF Subsidence Index, ETSI) was developed to predict cage subsidence (CS) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using expandable spacers.

• The study analyzed 388 patients (482 levels), finding a 31.7% CS rate at 3 months.

• Independent risk factors for CS included high ASA score, non-degenerative surgical indication, lower lumbar level, small cage size, and posterior cage position.

• The ETSI score ranges from -2 to 6; higher scores indicate higher CS risk (each point increases CS odds by about 2x).

• Modifiable risk factors (cage size and position) can reduce CS risk if addressed during surgery.

• Higher ETSI scores are also associated with increased risk of non-union/pseudarthrosis.

• The ETSI demonstrated moderate predictive performance (AUROC ≈ 0.68).

• The score may aid surgical planning and should be externally validated in future studies.

Posted on

A survival analysis for predictors of implant subsidence following 1- or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 43:42–51, 2025

This study found that after 1- or 2-level TLIF, aggressive disc height restoration and taller interbody implants significantly increase the risk of implant subsidence, especially in patients with poor bone quality. Surgeons should balance correction goals with subsidence risk, particularly in those with low Hounsfield unit measurements.

• This study analyzed predictors of interbody implant subsidence after 1- or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using a time-to-event (survival) analysis.

• Aggressive disc height restoration and use of taller interbody implants significantly increased the risk of subsidence.

• Poor baseline bone quality, measured by lower Hounsfield units (HU) on CT, was a strong independent predictor for significant (≥4 mm) subsidence.

• Longer fusion constructs (more instrumented levels) also increased the risk of significant subsidence.

• No significant association was found between cage material (titanium vs PEEK), device geometry, or lumbopelvic parameters and subsidence risk.

• Subsidence occurred in 38.2% of levels (≥2 mm) and significant subsidence in 10.4% (≥4 mm) by last follow-up.

• Clinical implications suggest balancing correction goals with subsidence risk, especially in patients with poor bone quality.

• Further multicenter and prospective studies are recommended to validate these findings.

Posted on

Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery

Brain and Spine 5 (2025) 104322

This study developed and validated the Expandable TLIF Subsidence Index (ETSI) to predict risk of cage subsidence after TLIF surgery with expandable spacers. Key risk factors include high ASA score, non-degenerative indications, lower lumbar level, small cage size, and posterior cage position. Some risk factors are modifiable.

• A risk score (ETSI) was developed to predict cage subsidence (CS) after TLIF surgery using expandable spacers.

• Independent risk factors for CS include high ASA score, non-degenerative surgical indication, lower lumbar level, small cage size, and posterior cage position.

• ETSI ranges from -2 to 6 points and shows a moderate ability to classify CS risk (AUROC ≈ 0.68).

• Modifiable risk factors (cage size and position) can reduce CS risk if optimized by the surgeon.

• Higher ETSI scores are associated with increased risk of non-union/pseudarthrosis at 3 and 12 months.

• Anterior placement of the cage lowers subsidence risk, while posterior placement increases it.

• The study included 388 patients with a 3-month CS rate of 31.7%.

• The ETSI is the first comprehensive scoring system for CS risk with expandable TLIF cages.

Posted on

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion subsidence

J Neurosurg Spine 41:463–472, 2024

The aims of this study were to 1) define the incidence of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) interbody subsidence; 2) determine the relative importance of preoperative and intraoperative patient- and instrumentation-specific risk factors predictive of postoperative subsidence using CT-based assessment; and 3) determine the impact of TLIF subsidence on postoperative complications and fusion rates.

METHODS All adult patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF for lumbar degenerative conditions at a multi-institutional academic center between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients with traumatic injury, infection, malignancy, previous fusion at the index level, combined anterior-posterior procedures, surgery with greater than two TLIF levels, or incomplete follow-up were excluded. Interbody subsidence at the superior and inferior endplates of each TLIF level was directly measured on the endplate-facing surface of both coronal and sagittal CT scans obtained greater than 6 months postoperatively. Patients were grouped based on the maximum subsidence at each operative level classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on previously documented < 2-mm, 2- to 4-mm, and ≥ 4-mm thresholds, respectively. Univariate and regression analyses compared patient demographics, medical comorbidities, preoperative bone quality, surgical factors including interbody cage parameters, and fusion and complication rates across subsidence groups.

RESULTS A total of 67 patients with 85 unique fusion levels met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 28% of levels exhibited moderate subsidence and 35% showed severe subsidence after TLIF with no significant difference in the superior and inferior endplate subsidence. Moderate (≥ 2-mm) and severe (≥ 4-mm) subsidence were significantly associated with decreases in cage surface area and Taillard index as well as interbody cages with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) material and sawtooth surface geometry. Severe subsidence was also significantly associated with taller preoperative disc spaces, decreased vertebral Hounsfield units (HU), the absence of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use, and smooth cage surfaces. Regression analysis revealed decreases in Taillard index, cage surface area, and HU, and the absence of BMP use predicted subsidence. Severe subsidence was found to be a predictor of pseudarthrosis but was not significantly associated with revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS Patient-level risk factors for TLIF subsidence included decreased HU and increased preoperative disc height. Intraoperative risk factors for TLIF subsidence were decreased cage surface area, PEEK cage material, bullet cages, posterior cage positioning, smooth cage surfaces, and sawtooth surface designs. Severe subsidence predicted TLIF pseudarthrosis; however, the causality of this relationship remains unclear.

Posted on

What is the Marginal Cost of Using Robot Assistance or Navigation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis

Neurosurgery 95:556–565, 2024

Our primary objective was to compare the marginal intraoperative cost of 3 different methods for pedicle screw placement as part of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing to compare costs between robot-assisted TLIF (RA-TLIF), TLIF with intraoperative navigation (ION-TLIF), and freehand (non-navigated, nonrobotic) TLIF.

METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. We identified all instances of RA-TLIF (n = 20), ION-TLIF (n = 59), and freehand TLIF (n = 233) from 2020 to 2022 at our institution. Software was developed to automate the extraction of all intraoperatively used personnel and material resources from the electronic medical record. Total costs were determined through a combination of direct observation, electronic medical record extraction, and interdepartmental collaboration (business operations, sterile processing, pharmacy, and plant operation departments). Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to compare costs between TLIF modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site.

RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case for the RA-TLIF, ION-TLIF, and freehand TLIF cohorts was $24 838 ± $10 748, $15 991 ± $6254, and $14 498 ± $6580, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that RA-TLIF had significantly higher intraoperative cost compared with both ION-TLIF ( β -coefficient: $7383 ± $1575, P < .001) and freehand TLIF ( β -coefficient: $8182 ± $1523, P < .001). These cost differences were primarily driven by supply cost. However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative cost between ION-TLIF and freehand TLIF (P = .32).

CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a novel use of time-driven activity-based costing methodology to compare different modalities for executing the same type of lumbar fusion procedure. RA-TLIF entails significantly higher supply cost when compared with other modalities, which explains its association with higher total intraoperative cost. The use of ION, however, does not add extra expense compared with freehand TLIF when accounting for confounders. This might have implications as surgeons and hospitals move toward bundled payments.

Posted on

Completely Minimally Invasive Implant Removal and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Disease: Case Series and Operative Video

Operative Neurosurgery 27:322–328, 2024

Adjacent segment disease is a relatively common late complication after lumbar fusion. If symptomatic, certain patients require fusion of the degenerated adjacent segment. Currently, there are no posterior completely minimally invasive techniques described for fusion of the adjacent segment above or below a previous fusion. We describe here a novel minimally invasive technique for both implant removal (MIS-IR) and adjacent level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar stenosis.

METHODS: Demographic, surgical, and radiographic outcome data were collected for patients with lumbar stenosis and previous lumbar fusion, who were treated with MIS-IR and MIS-TLIF through the same incision. Radiographic outcomes were assessed postoperatively and complications were assessed at the primary end point of 3 months.

RESULTS: A total of 14 patients (7 female and 7 male), with average age 64.6 years (SD 13.4), were included in this case series. Nine patients had single-level MIS-IR with single-level MIS-TLIF. Three patients had 2-level MIS-IR with single-level MIS-TLIF. Two patients had single-level MIS-IR with 2-level MIS-TLIF. Only 1 patient had a postoperative complication hematoma requiring same-day evacuation. There were no other complications at the primary end point and no fusion failure at the hardware removal levels to date (average follow-up, 11 months). Average increases in posterior disk height and foraminal height after MIS-TLIF were 4.44, and 2.18 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive spinal IR can be successfully completed along with adjacent level TLIF through the same incisions, via an all-posterior approach.

Posted on

Are there differences in the reoperation rates for operative adjacent-segment disease between ALIF+PS, PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, and LLIF+PS? An analysis of a cohort of 5291 patients

J Neurosurg Spine 40:733–740, 2024

Biomechanical factors in lumbar fusions accelerate the development of adjacent-segment disease (ASD). Stiffness in the fused segment increases motion in the adjacent levels, resulting in ASD. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (ALIF+PS), posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (PLIF+PS), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (TLIF+PS), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (LLIF+PS).

METHODS A retrospective study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified an adult cohort (≥ 18 years old) with degenerative disc disease who underwent primary lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws between L3 to S1. Demographic and operative data were obtained from the registry, and chart review was used to document operative ASD. Patients were followed until operative ASD, membership termination, the end of study (March 31, 2022), or death. Operative ASD was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS The final study population included 5291 patients with a mean ± SD age of 60.1 ± 12.1 years and a followup of 6.3 ± 3.8 years. There was a total of 443 operative ASD cases, with an overall incidence rate of reoperation for ASD of 8.37% (95% CI 7.6–9.2). The crude incidence of operative ASD at 5 years was the lowest in the ALIF+PS cohort (7.7%, 95% CI 6.3–9.4). In the adjusted models, the authors failed to detect a statistical difference in operative ASD between ALIF+PS (reference) versus PLIF+PS (HR 1.06 [0.79–1.44], p = 0.69) versus TLIF+PS (HR 1.03 [0.81–1.31], p = 0.83) versus LLIF+PS (HR 1.38 [0.77–2.46], p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS In a large cohort of over 5000 patients with an average follow-up of > 6 years, the authors found no differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between ALIF+PS and PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, or LLIF+PS.

Posted on

A comparison of modern-era anterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the lumbosacral junction

J Neurosurg Spine 39:785–792, 2023

Interbody fusion is the primary method for achieving arthrodesis across the lumbosacral junction in the setting of degenerative pathologies, such as spondylosis and spondylolisthesis. Two common techniques are anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In recent years, interbody design and technology have advanced, and most earlier studies comparing ALIF and TLIF did not specifically assess the lumbosacral junction. This study compared changes in radiographic and clinical parameters between patients undergoing modern-era single-level ALIF and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) TLIF at L5–S1.

METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent single-segment L5–S1 ALIF or MIS TLIF performed by the senior authors over a 6-year interval (January 1, 2016–November 30, 2021) were retrospectively reviewed. Upright radiographs were used to determine pre- and postoperative lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc angle, and neuroforaminal height. Improvements in patient-reported outcome scores (Oswestry Disability Index and SF-36) were also compared.

RESULTS Overall, 108 patients (58 [54%] men, 50 [46%] women; mean [SD] age 57.6 [13.5] years) were included in the study. ALIF was performed in 49 patients, and TLIF was performed in 59 patients. The most common treatment indications were spondylolisthesis (50%, 54/108) and spondylosis (46%, 50/108). The cohorts did not differ in terms of intraoperative (p > 0.99) or postoperative (p = 0.73) complication rates. The mean (SD) hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for patients undergoing TLIF than ALIF (1.3 [0.6] days vs 2.0 [1.4] days, p < 0.001). Both techniques significantly improved L5–S1 segmental lordosis, disc angle, and neuroforaminal height (p ≤ 0.008). ALIF versus TLIF significantly increased mean [SD] segmental lordosis (12.5° [7.3°] vs 2.0° [5.7°], p < 0.001), disc angle (14.8° [5.5°] vs 3.0° [6.1°], p < 0.001), and neuroforaminal height (4.5 [4.6] mm vs 2.4 [3.0] mm, p = 0.008). Improvements in patient-reported outcome parameters and reoperation rates were similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS When treating patients at a single segment across the lumbosacral junction, ALIF resulted in significantly greater increases in segmental lordosis, L5–S1 disc angle, and neuroforaminal height compared with MIS TLIF. Improvements in clinical parameters and reoperation rates were similar between the 2 techniques.

Posted on

Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF

J Neurosurg Spine 37:384–394, 2022

Local and regional radiographic outcomes following minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus open TLIF remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of local and regional radiographic parameters following MI-TLIF and open TLIF. The authors hypothesized that open TLIF provides greater segmental and global lordosis correction than MI-TLIF.

METHODS A single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing MI- or open TLIF for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis was performed. One-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match patients who underwent open TLIF to those who underwent MI-TLIF. Sagittal segmental radiographic measures included segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), foraminal height (FH), percent spondylolisthesis, and cage position. Lumbopelvic radiographic parameters included overall lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI)–lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Change in segmental or overall lordosis after surgery was considered “lordosing” if the change was > 0° and “kyphosing” if it was ≤ 0°. Student t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare outcomes between MI-TLIF and open-TLIF groups.

RESULTS A total of 267 patients were included in the study, 114 (43%) who underwent MI-TLIF and 153 (57%) who underwent open TLIF, with an average follow-up of 56.6 weeks (SD 23.5 weeks). After PSM, there were 75 patients in each group. At the latest follow-up both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in assessment scores obtained with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the numeric rating scale for low-back pain (NRS-BP), without significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in SL, ADH, and percent corrected spondylolisthesis compared to baseline (p < 0.001). However, the MI-TLIF group experienced significantly larger magnitudes of correction with respect to these metrics (ΔSL 4.14° ± 4.35° vs 1.15° ± 3.88°, p < 0.001; ΔADH 4.25 ± 3.68 vs 1.41 ± 3.77 mm, p < 0.001; percent corrected spondylolisthesis: −10.82% ± 6.47% vs −5.87% ± 8.32%, p < 0.001). In the MI-TLIF group, LL improved in 44% (0.3° ± 8.5°) of the cases, compared to 48% (0.9° ± 6.4°) of the cases in the open-TLIF group (p > 0.05). Stratification by operative technique (unilateral vs bilateral facetectomy) and by interbody device (static vs expandable) did not yield statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and local radiographic parameters, with neutral effects on regional alignment. Surprisingly, in our cohort, change in SL was significantly greater in MI-TLIF patients, perhaps reflecting the effect of operative techniques, technological innovations, and the preservation of the posterior tension band. Taking these results together, no significant overall differences in LL between groups were demonstrated, which suggests that MI-TLIF is comparable to open approaches in providing radiographic correction after surgery. These findings suggest that alignment targets can be achieved by either MI- or open-TLIF approaches, highlighting the importance of surgeon attention to these variables.

Posted on

Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion induce lordosis or kyphosis?

J Neurosurg Spine 35:419–426, 2021

Conflicting reports exist about whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) induces lordosis or kyphosis, ranging from decreasing lordosis by 3.71° to increasing it by 18.8°. In this study, the authors’ aim was to identify factors that result in kyphosis or lordosis after TLIF.

METHODS A single-center, retrospective study of open TLIF without osteotomy for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 2-year follow-up was undertaken. Preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographic parameters and cage specifics were collected. TLIFs were considered to be “lordosing” if postoperative induction of lordosis was > 0° and “kyphosing” if postoperative induction of lordosis was ≤ 0°.

RESULTS A total of 137 patients with an average follow-up of 52.5 months (range 24–130 months) were included. The overall postoperative disc angle (DA) and segmental lordosis (SL) increased by 1.96° and 1.88° (p = 0.003 and p = 0.038), respectively, whereas overall lumbar lordosis remained unchanged (p = 0.133). Seventy-nine patients had lordosing TLIFs with a mean SL increase of 5.72° ± 3.97°, and 58 patients had kyphosing TLIFs with a mean decrease of 3.02° ± 2.98°. Multivariate analysis showed that a lower preoperative DA, lower preoperative SL, and anterior cage placement were correlated with the greatest increase in postoperative SL (p = 0.040, p < 0.001, and p = 0.035, respectively). There was no difference in demographics, cage type or height, or spinopelvic parameters between the groups (p > 0.05). Linear regression showed that the preoperative DA and SL correlated with SL after TLIF (R2 = 0.198, p < 0.001; and R2 = 0.2931, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS Whether a TLIF induces kyphosis or lordosis depends on the preoperative DA, preoperative SL, and cage position. Less-lordotic segments became more lordotic postoperatively, and highly lordotic segments may lose lordosis after TLIF. Cages placed more anteriorly were associated with more lordosis.

Posted on

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a novel minimally invasive expandable interbody cage

J Neurosurg Spine 35:170–176, 2021

The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a novel multidirectional in situ expandable minimally invasive surgery (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage.

METHODS A retrospective analysis of 69 consecutive patients undergoing a 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF using an expandable cage was performed over a 2-year period. Standard MIS techniques with pedicle screw fixation were used in all cases. Upright lateral dynamic flexion/extension radiographs were reviewed prior to and at 1 year after surgery. Clinical metrics included numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and the SF-12 and VR-12 physical and mental health surveys. Radiographic parameters included anterior and posterior disc height, neuroforaminal height, spondylolisthesis, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and fusion rate.

RESULTS A total of 69 patients representing 75 operative levels met study inclusion criteria. The mean patient age at surgery was 63.4 ± 1.2 years, with a female predominance of 51%. The average radiographic and clinical follow-ups were 372 and 368 days, respectively. A total of 63 patients (91%) underwent 1-level surgery and 6 patients (9%) underwent 2-level surgery. Significant reductions of numeric rating scale scores for back and leg pain were observed—from 6.1 ± 0.7 to 2.5 ± 0.3 (p < 0.0001) and 4.9 ± 0.6 to 1.9 ± 0.2 (p < 0.0001), respectively. A similar reduction in Oswestry Disability Index from 38.0 ± 4.6 to 20.0 ± 2.3 (p < 0.0001) was noted. Likewise, SF-12 and VR-12 scores all showed statistically significant improvement from baseline (p < 0.001). The mean anterior and posterior disc heights improved from 8.7 ± 1.0 mm to 13.4 ± 1.5 mm (p = 0.0001) and 6.5 ± 0.8 mm to 9.6 ± 1.1 mm (p = 0.0001), respectively. Neuroforaminal height improved from 17.6 ± 2.0 mm to 21.9 ± 2.5 mm (p = 0.0001). When present, spondylolisthesis was, on average, reduced from 4.3 ± 0.5 mm to 1.9 ± 0.2 mm (p = 0.0001). Lumbar lordosis improved from 47.8° ± 5.5° to 58.5° ± 6.8° (p = 0.2687), and no significant change in segmental lordosis was observed. The overall rate of radiographic fusion was 93.3% at 1 year. No perioperative complications requiring operative revision were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS In this series of MIS TLIFs, use of this novel interbody cage was shown to be safe and effective. Significant improvements in pain and disability were observed. Effective and durable restoration of disc height and neuroforaminal height and reduction of spondylolisthesis were obtained, with concurrent gains in lumbar lordosis. Taken together, this device offers excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes via an MIS approach.

Posted on

Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 34:471–480, 2021

Potential advantages of using expandable versus static cages during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are not fully established. The authors aimed to compare the long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static TLIF cages.

METHODS A retrospective review of 1- and 2-level TLIFs over a 10-year period with expandable and static cages was performed at the University of California, San Francisco. Patients with posterior column osteotomy (PCO) were subdivided. Fusion assessment, cage subsidence, anterior and posterior disc height, foraminal dimensions, pelvic incidence (PI), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were assessed.

RESULTS A consecutive series of 178 patients (with a total of 210 levels) who underwent TLIF using either static (148 levels) or expandable cages (62 levels) was reviewed. The mean patient age was 60.3 ± 11.5 years and 62.8 ± 14.1 years for the static and expandable cage groups, respectively. The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 29.4 months for the static cage group and 27.6 ± 14.1 months for the expandable cage group. Within the 1-level TLIF group, the SL and PI-LL improved with statistical significance regardless of whether PCO was performed; however, the static group with PCOs also had statistically significant improvement in LL and SVA. The expandable cage with PCO subgroup had significant improvement in SL only. All of the foraminal parameters improved with statistical significance, regardless of the type of cages used; however, the expandable cage group had greater improvement in disc height restoration. The incidence of cage subsidence was higher in the expandable group (19.7% vs 5.4%, p = 0.0017). Within the expandable group, the unilateral facetectomy-only subgroup had a 5.6 times higher subsidence rate than the PCO subgroup (26.8% vs 4.8%, p = 0.04). Four expandable cages collapsed over time.

CONCLUSIONS Expandable TLIF cages may initially restore disc height better than static cages, but they also have higher rates of subsidence. Unilateral facetectomy alone may result in more subsidence with expandable cages than using bilateral PCO, potentially because of insufficient facet release. Although expandable cages may have more power to induce lordosis and restore disc height than static cages, subsidence and endplate violation may negate any significant gains compared to static cages.

 

Posted on

Is the Goutallier grade of multifidus fat infiltration associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion?

J Neurosurg Spine 34:190–195, 2021

The aim of this study was to investigate whether fat infiltration of the lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle affects revision surgery rates for adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after L4–5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS A total of 178 patients undergoing single-level L4–5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis (2006 to 2016) were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a minimum 2-year follow-up, preoperative MR images and radiographs, and single-level L4–5 TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Twenty-three patients underwent revision surgery for ASD during the follow-up. Another 23 patients without ASD were matched with the patients with ASD. Demographic data, Roussouly curvature type, and spinopelvic parameter data were collected. The fat infiltration of the LM muscle (L3, L4, and L5) was evaluated on preoperative MRI using the Goutallier classification system.

RESULTS A total of 46 patients were evaluated. There were no differences in age, sex, BMI, or spinopelvic parameters with regard to patients with and those without ASD (p > 0.05). Fat infiltration of the LM was significantly greater in the patients with ASD than in those without ASD (p = 0.029). Fat infiltration was most significant at L3 in patients with ASD than in patients without ASD (p = 0.017). At L4 and L5, there was an increasing trend of fat infiltration in the patients with ASD than in those without ASD, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.354 for L4 and p = 0.077 for L5).

CONCLUSIONS Fat infiltration of the LM may be associated with ASD after L4–5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis. Fat infiltration at L3 may also be associated with ASD at L3–4 after L4–5 TLIF.

Posted on

How I do it: mini invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Acta Neurochirurgica (2021) 163:289–293

Minimally invasive approaches for lumbar fusion are aimed at reducing soft tissue injury in order to minimize surgical morbidity and facilitate recovery.

Method Applied to lumbar fusion, such an approach is described as a mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Important anatomical landmarks are reviewed. Indications, advantages, and limitations are discussed, and a step-by-step description of the procedure is presented.

Results Decompression, fixation, and bone grafting can be achieved efficiently through this approach with lesser blood loss, shorter hospital stay, reduced rate of general complications, and infections as well as a lower readmission rate.

Conclusion The mini-open TLIF technique, as presented here, is a safe and efficient procedure to achieve lumbar fusion with a reduced rate of complications related to surgery.

Posted on

Radiological adjacent-segment degeneration in L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison between dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 29:250–258, 2018

Pedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization has been an alternative to conventional lumbar fusion for the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, the true effect of dynamic stabilization on adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) remains undetermined. Authors of this study aimed to investigate the incidence of ASD and to compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

METHODS The records of consecutive patients with Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone surgical management at L4–5 in the period from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery performed: Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) group and MI-TLIF group. Pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations, including radiography, CT, and MRI studies, were compared. Adjacent discs were evaluated using 4 radiological parameters: instability (antero- or retrolisthesis), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification), endplate degeneration (Modic classification), and range of motion (ROM). Clinical outcomes, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were also compared.

RESULTS A total of 79 patients with L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in the analysis. During a mean follow-up of 35.2 months (range 24–89 months), there were 56 patients in the DDS group and 23 in the MI-TLIF group. Prior to surgery, both groups were very similar in demographic, radiological, and clinical data. Postoperation, both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, and JOA scores) at each time point of evaluation. There was a lower chance of disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification) of the adjacent discs in the DDS group than in the MI-TLIF group (17% vs 37%, p = 0.01). However, the DDS and MI-TLIF groups had similar rates of instability (15.2% vs 17.4%, respectively, p = 0.92) and endplate degeneration (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.30) at the cranial (L3–4) and caudal (L5–S1) adjacent levels after surgery. The mean ROM in the cranial and caudal levels was also similar in the two groups. None of the patients required secondary surgery for any ASD (defined by radiological criteria).

CONCLUSIONS The clinical improvements after DDS were similar to those following MI-TLIF for L4–5 Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at 3 years postoperation. According to radiological evaluations, there was a lower chance of disc degeneration in the adjacent levels of the patients who had undergone DDS. However, other radiological signs of ASD, including instability, endplate degeneration, and ROM, were similar between the two groups. Although none of the patients in the present series required secondary surgery, a longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be necessary to corroborate the protective effect of DDS against ASD.

Posted on

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Mini-open Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Oblique Self-anchored Stand-alone Cages for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation

Spine 2017;42:E1259–E1265

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of mini-open ALIF (MO-ALIF) with self-anchored stand-alone cages for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Summary of Background Data. Currently, whether ALIF is superior to TLIF for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation remains controversial.

Summary of Background Data. Currently, whether ALIF is superior to TLIF for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation remains controversial.

Methods. This study retrospectively reviewed 82 patients who underwent MO-ALIF with self-anchored standalone cages (n=42) or TLIF (n=40) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation between April 2013 and October 2014. Patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, and perioperative complications were collated. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) scoring, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for pain in the leg and back, and radiological outcomes, including fusion, lumbar lordosis (LL), disc height (DH), and cage subsidence were evaluated at each follow-up for up to 2 years.

Results. Patients who underwent TLIF had a significantly higher volume of blood loss (295.2±81.4 vs. 57.0±15.2mL) and longer surgery time (130.7±45.1 vs. 60.4±20.8 min) than those who had MO-ALIF. Compared with baseline, both groups had significant improvements in the VAS and ODI scores and DH and LL postoperatively, though no significant difference was found between the two groups regarding these indexes. All patients reached solid fusion at the final follow-up in both groups. Three patients (3/42) with three levels (3/50) suffered from cage subsidence in the MO-ALIF group; meanwhile, no cage subsidence occurred in the TLIF group. Conclusion. MO-ALIF with self-anchored stand-alone cages is a safe and effective treatment of lumbar disc herniation with less surgical trauma and similar clinical and radiological outcomes compared with TLIF.

Conclusion. MO-ALIF with self-anchored stand-alone cages is a safe and effective treatment of lumbar disc herniation with less surgical trauma and similar clinical and radiological outcomes compared with TLIF.

Level of Evidence: 3

Posted on

Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Neurosurgery 81:69–74, 2017

One criticism of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the inability to increase segmental lordosis (SL). Expandable interbody cages are a relatively new innovation theorized to allow improvement in SL.

OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in SL and lumbar lordosis (LL) after TLIF with nonexpandable vs expandable cages. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who were ≥18 years old and underwent single-level TLIF between 2011 and 2014. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs expandable). Primary outcome of interestwas change in SL and LL from preoperative values to those at 1 month and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were studied (48 nonexpandable group, 41 expandable group). Groups had similar baseline characteristics. For SL, median (interquartile range) improvement was 3◦ for nonexpandable and 2◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .09; adjusted, P = .68) at 1 month postoperatively, and 3◦ for nonexpandable and 1◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P=.41; adjusted, P=.28) at 1 year postoperatively. For LL, median improvement was 1◦ for nonexpandable and 2◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .20; adjusted, P = .21), and 2◦ for nonexpandable and 5◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .15; adjusted, P=.51) at 1 year postoperatively. After excluding parallel expandable cages, there was still no difference in SL or LL improvement at 1month or 1 year postoperatively between static and expandable cages (both unadjusted and adjusted, P > .05).

CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing single-level TLIF experienced similar improvements in SL and LL regardless of whether nonexpandable or expandable cages were placed.

Posted on

ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial

ALIF-TDR vs TLIF

Eur Spine J (2016) 25:1558–1566

Study design: Prospective, randomized trial.

Purpose: The treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with two-level fusion has been associated with a reasonable rate of complications. The aim of the present study was to compare (Hybrid) stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 with total disc replacement at L4/5 (TDR) as an alternative surgical strategy to (Fusion) 2-level circumferential fusion employing trans- foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with transpedicular stabilization at L4–S1.

Methods: A total of 62 patients with symptomatic DDD of segments L5/S1 (Modic ≥2°) and L4/5 (Modic ≤2°; positive discography) were enrolled; 31 were treated with Hybrid and 31 with Fusion. Preoperatively, at 0, 12, and a mean follow-up of 37 months, clinical (ODI, VAS) and radiological evaluations (plain/extension-flexion radiographs evaluated for implant failure, fusion, global and segmental lordosis, and ROM) were performed.

Results: In 26 of 31 Hybrid and 24 of 31 Fusion patients available at the final follow-up, we found a significant clinical improvement compared to preoperatively. Hybrid patients had significantly lower VAS scores immediately postoperatively and at follow-up compared to Fusion patients. The complication rates were low and similar between the groups. Lumbar lordosis increased in both groups. The increase was mainly located at L4–S1 in the Hybrid group and at L1–L4 in the Fusion group. Hybrid patients presented with increased ROM at L4/5 and L3/4, and Fusion patients presented with increased ROM at L3/4, with significantly greater ROM at L3/4 compared to Hybrid patients at follow-up.

Conclusions Hybrid surgery is a viable surgical alternative for the presented indication. Approach-related inferior trauma and the balanced restoration of lumbar lordosis resulted in superior clinical outcomes compared to two-level circumferential fusion with TLIF.

Proudly powered by WordPress