Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with an expandable interbody device: Two-year clinical and radiographic outcomes

被引:1
|
作者
Weinstein, Marc A. [1 ,2 ]
Ayala, Giovanni A. [3 ]
Roura, Raul [3 ]
Christmas, Kaitlyn N. [3 ]
Warren, Deborah H. [3 ]
Simon, Peter [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ S Florida, Dept Orthopaed & Sports Med, Morsani Sch Med, 13330 USF Laurel Dr, Tampa, FL USA
[2] Florida Orthopaed Inst, 13020 Telecom Prkw N, Tampa, FL USA
[3] Fdn Orthopaed Res & Educ, 4115 W Spruce St, Tampa, FL 33607 USA
来源
关键词
Expandable cage; TLIF; Lumbar interbody fusion; Radiographic parameters; Back pain; Lumbar lordosis; Segmental lordosis; CAGE; LORDOSIS; SUBSIDENCE; RESTORATION; TECHNOLOGY; SPACERS; DISTRACTION; DISABILITY; ANTERIOR; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100286
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The use of interbody cages as an adjunct to lumbar spinal fusion remains an important technique to enhance segmental stability, promote solid arthrodesis, maintain neuroforaminal decompression, and preserve/improve segmental lordosis. Appropriate segmental lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance is well-known to be critical for long-term patient outcomes. This study sought to evaluate the radiographic and clinical results of TLIF in patients using an articulating, expandable cage. Primary endpoint was clinical and radiographic outcomes, including complications, at 12 and 24 months. Methods: A total of 37 patients underwent open single-level or 2-level TLIF by a single surgeon using an expandable cage with concomitant bilateral pedicle screws and posterolateral arthrodesis. Clinical outcomes included ODI and VAS for back and legs. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic incidence and tilt, lumbar and segmental lordoses, and disc height at the operative level(s). All outcomes were collected at baseline, 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, and 24-months postop. Results: A total of 28 patients were available for analysis. Nine patients failed to follow-up at 24 months. Mean ODI scores showed significant improvement, from pre-to-postoperative at 24 months (55%; p<.0001). VAS for back and legs was significantly lower at 24 months on average by 72 and 79%, respectively (p<.0001 for both). Both segmental and lumbar lordoses significantly improved by 5.3 degrees and 4.2 degrees (p<.0001 and p=.049), respectively. Average disc height improved by 49% or 6.1 mm (p<.001). No device-related complications nor instances of measured subsidence. One patient had a superficial infection, and another had an intraoperatively repaired incidental durotomy. Conclusions: The use of an expandable cage contributed to improvement in both segmental and lumbar lordosis with no reported complications at 24-month follow-up. All clinical measures significantly improved as well. The expandable cage design represents an effective and safe option to increase cage size and allow significant segmental lordosis correction.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Direct Lumbar Interbody Fusion : Clinical and Radiological Results
    Lee, Young Seok
    Kim, Young Baeg
    Park, Seung Won
    Chung, Chan
    JOURNAL OF KOREAN NEUROSURGICAL SOCIETY, 2014, 56 (06) : 469 - 474
  • [22] Expandable versus Static Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: 1-year Radiographic Parameters and Patient-Reported Outcomes
    Woodward, Josha
    Koro, Lacin
    Richards, Dominick
    Keegan, Christopher
    Fessler, Richard D.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 159 : E1 - E7
  • [23] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Technology: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis of 50 Patients
    Kim, Choll W.
    Doerr, Todd M.
    Luna, Ingrid Y.
    Joshua, Gita
    Shen, Sun Ren
    Fu, Xin
    Wu, Ai-Min
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 90 : 228 - 235
  • [24] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Moskowitz, A
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2002, 33 (02) : 359 - +
  • [25] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Cesare Faldini
    Raffaele Borghi
    Mohammadreza Chehrassan
    Fabrizio Perna
    Federico Pilla
    Francesco Traina
    European Spine Journal, 2017, 26 : 429 - 430
  • [26] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Faldini, Cesare
    Borghi, Raffaele
    Chehrassan, Mohammadreza
    Perna, Fabrizio
    Pilla, Federico
    Traina, Francesco
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 26 : 429 - 430
  • [27] Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Sheng-Dan Jiang
    Jiang-Wei Chen
    Lei-Sheng Jiang
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2012, 132 : 1259 - 1266
  • [28] RADIOGRAPHIC RESTORATION OF LUMBAR ALIGNMENT AFTER TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION
    Jagannathan, Jay
    Sansur, Charles A.
    Oskouian, Rod J., Jr.
    Fu, Kai-Ming
    Shaffrey, Christopher I.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2009, 64 (05) : 955 - 963
  • [29] Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Jiang, Sheng-Dan
    Chen, Jiang-Wei
    Jiang, Lei-Sheng
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2012, 132 (09) : 1259 - 1266
  • [30] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kulkarni, Arvind G.
    Bohra, Hussain
    Dhruv, Abhilash
    Sarraf, Abhishek
    Bassi, Anupreet
    Patil, Vishwanath M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2016, 50 (05) : 464 - 472