Early Experience With Uniplanar Versus Biplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

被引:2
|
作者
Ledesma, Jonathan A. [1 ,2 ]
Ottaway, Jesse C. [1 ]
Lambrechts, Mark J. [1 ]
Dees, Azra [1 ]
Thomas, Terence L. [1 ]
Kurd, Mark F. [1 ]
Radcliff, Kris E. [1 ]
Anderson, David G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Rothman Orthopaed Inst, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Spine Div, Rothman Orthopaed Inst, 925 Chestnut St 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
Spinal fusion; Lumbar vertebra; Patient-reported outcomes; Minimally invasive surgery; Spine; SUBSIDENCE; OUTCOMES; CAGE;
D O I
10.14245/ns.2244870.435
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To compare the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable unipla-nar versus biplanar interbody cages used for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).Methods: A retrospective review of 1-level MIS-TLIFs performed with uniplanar and bipla-nar polyetheretherketone cages was performed. Radiographic measurements were performed on radiographs taken preoperatively, at 6-week follow-up, and 1-year follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg at 3-month and 1-year follow-up.Results: A total of 93 patients (41 uniplanar, 52 biplanar) were included. Both cage types provided significant postoperative improvements in anterior disc height, posterior disc hei-ght, and segmental lordosis at 1 year. No significant differences in cage subsidence rates were found between uniplanar (21. 9%) and biplanar devices (32. 7%) at 6 weeks (odds ra-tio, 2.015; 95% confidence interval, 0.651-6.235 ; p = 0.249) with no additional instances of subsidence at 1 year. No significant differences in the magnitude of improvements based on ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 3-month or 1-year follow-up between groups and the proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 1 year were not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05). Finally, there were no significant differences in complication rates (p = 0.283), 90-day readmission rates (p =1.00), revision surgical procedures (p = 0.423), or fusion rates at 1 year (p = 0.457) between groups.Conclusion: Biplanar and uniplanar expandable cages offer a safe and effective means of improving anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis, and patient -re-ported outcome measures at 1 year postoperatively. No significant differences in radiograph-ic outcomes, subsidence rates, mean subsidence distance, 1-year patient-reported outcomes, and postoperative complications were noted between groups.
引用
收藏
页码:487 / +
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
    Patel, Madhav R.
    Jacob, Kevin C.
    Pawlowski, Hanna
    Prabhu, Michael C.
    Vanjani, Nisheka N.
    Singh, Kern
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2022, 30 (21) : E1382 - E1390
  • [2] MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION WITH EXPANDABLE CAGES
    Buckland, Aaron J.
    Proctor, Dylan J.
    JBJS ESSENTIAL SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 13 (02):
  • [3] Comparing Miniopen and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in Single-Level Lumbar Degeneration
    Lo, Wei-Lun
    Lin, Chien-Min
    Yeh, Yi-Shian
    Su, Yu-kai
    Tseng, Yuan-Yun
    Yang, Shun-Tai
    Lin, Jai-Wei
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 2015
  • [4] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion
    Stadler, James A., III
    Dandaleh, Nader S.
    Smith, Zachary A.
    Koski, Tyler R.
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 25 (02) : 377 - +
  • [5] Retrospective Review of Immediate Restoration of Lordosis in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Static and Expandable Interbody Cages
    Vaishnav, Avani S.
    Saville, Philip
    McAnany, Steven
    Kirnaz, Sertac
    Wipplinger, Christoph
    Navarro-Ramirez, Rodrigo
    Hartl, Roger
    Yang, Jingyan
    Gang, Catherine Himo
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 18 (05) : 518 - 523
  • [6] Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Shen, Xiaolong
    Zhang, Hailong
    Gu, Xin
    Gu, Guangfei
    Zhou, Xu
    He, Shisheng
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2014, 21 (09) : 1612 - 1616
  • [7] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Rezk, Essam Moneer Ali
    Elkholy, Ahmed Rizk
    Shamhoot, Ebrahim Ahmed
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 34 (01)
  • [8] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Essam Moneer Ali Rezk
    Ahmed Rizk Elkholy
    Ebrahim Ahmed Shamhoot
    Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery, 34
  • [9] Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation at L5/S1
    Jacob, Kevin C.
    Patel, Madhav R.
    Ribot, Max A.
    Parsons, Alexander W.
    Vanjani, Nisheka N.
    Pawlowski, Hanna
    Prabhu, Michael C.
    Singh, Kern
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 157 : E111 - E122
  • [10] Single-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5/S1 for an Obese Population
    Patel, Madhav Rajesh
    Jacob, Kevin Chacko
    Zamanian, Cameron
    Pawlowski, Hanna
    Prabhu, Michael Clifford
    Vanjani, Nisheka Navin
    Singh, Kern
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 17 (02) : 293 - 303