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
  • [21] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [22] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters
    Hawasli, Ammar H.
    Khalifeh, Jawad M.
    Chatrath, Ajay
    Yarbrough, Chester K.
    Ray, Wilson Z.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2017, 43 (02)
  • [23] A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Singh, Kern
    Nandyala, Sreeharsha V.
    Marquez-Lara, Alejandro
    Fineberg, Steven J.
    Oglesby, Mathew
    Pelton, Miguel A.
    Andersson, Gunnar B.
    Isayeva, Darya
    Jegier, Briana J.
    Phillips, Frank M.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 14 (08): : 1694 - 1701
  • [24] Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Rihn, Jeffrey A.
    Patel, Ravi
    Makda, Junaid
    Hong, Joseph
    Anderson, David G.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Albert, Todd J.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2009, 9 (08): : 623 - 629
  • [25] Perioperative and postoperative complications of single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly adults
    Lee, Peter
    Fessler, Richard G.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2012, 19 (01) : 111 - 114
  • [26] Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Early Experience Using a Biplanar Expandable Cage for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Tan, Lee A.
    Rivera, Joshua
    Tan, Xiao A.
    Le, Vivian P.
    Khoo, Larry T.
    Berven, Sigurd H.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 14 : S39 - S44
  • [27] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Kim, Chi Heon
    Easley, Kirk
    Lee, Jun-Seok
    Hong, Jae-Young
    Virk, Michael
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    Yoon, Sangwook T.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 10 : 143S - 150S
  • [28] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience
    Schizas, Constantin
    Tzinieris, Nicolas
    Tsiridis, Elefterios
    Kosmopoulos, Victor
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2009, 33 (06) : 1683 - 1688
  • [29] Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease
    Kim, Ju-Eun
    Yoo, Hyun-Seung
    Choi, Dae-Jung
    Park, Eugene J.
    Jee, Seung-Min
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 34 (02): : E64 - E71
  • [30] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and spondylolisthesis
    Tsahtsarlis, Antonio
    Wood, Martin
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2012, 19 (06) : 858 - 861