A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis

Clinical outcomes of two types of cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases: n-HA/PA66 cages versus PEEK cages

This study reports the clinical effects of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 cages (n-HA/PA66 cages) and compares the clinical outcomes between n-HA/PA66 and polyetheretherketone cages (PEEK cages) for application in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A retrospective and case-control study involving 124 patients using n-HA/PA66 cages and 142 patients using PEEK cages was conducted. All patients underwent TLIF and had an average of 2-years of follow-up. The Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale were selected to assess the pain of low back and leg, as well as neurological status. The intervertebral space height and segmental angle were also measured to estimate the radiological changes. At the 1-year and final follow-ups, the fusion and subsidence rates were evaluated. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding clinical and radiological results. At the final follow-up, the bony fusion rate was 92.45 and 91.57 % for the n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups, respectively, and the subsidence rate was 7.55 and 8.99 %, respectively. The study indicated that both n-HA/PA66 and PEEK cages could promote effective clinical and radiographic outcomes when used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases. The high fusion and low subsidence rates revealed that n-HA/PA66 cages could be an alternative ideal choice as the same to PEEK cages for lumbar reconstruction after TLIF.

Current Status of Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Instrumented lumbar fusion can provide immediate stability and assist in satisfactory arthrodesis in patients who have pain or instability of the lumbar spine. Lumbar adjunctive fusion with decompression is often a good procedure for surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Among various lumbar fusion techniques, lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) has an advantage in that it maintains favorable lumbar alignment and provides successful fusion with the added effect of indirect decompression. This technique has been widely used and represents an advancement in spinal instrumentation, although the rationale and optimal type of LIF for DS remains controversial. We evaluated the current status and role of LIF in DS treatment, mainly as a means to augment instrumentation. We addressed the basic concept of LIF, its indications, and various types including minimally invasive techniques. It also has acceptable biomechanical features, and offers reconstruction with ideal lumbar alignment. Postsurgical adverse events related to each LIF technique are also addressed.

Analysis of the correlative factors in the selection of interbody fusion cage height in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background

Selecting an interbody cage with appropriate height is one of the key steps in lumbar interbody fusion, and has an important impact on clinical efficacy. How to choose the appropriate height of the cage becomes one of the core problems of lumbar interbody fusion for spine surgeons. However, studies about objective selection criteria on interbody cage height was rare.

Methods

One hundred fifty-seven patients with single segment lumbar degenerative diseases treated by TLIF surgery from January 2011 to July 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Parameters analyzed included: gender, age, body height, clinical diagnosis, pathological segment location and the intervertebral height of pathological segment, pathological segment activity, the intervertebral height of the adjacent segments. And further to analyze the correlation between these parameters and interbody cage height. By measuring the intervertebral height of pathological segment and normal segment to calculate the regression equation of interbody cage height.

Results

The average interbody cage height of male patients (12.38 ± 1.43) mm was significantly higher than female (11.62 ± 1.45) mm (p < 0.001). The L4-5 segment interbody cage height (12.11 ± 1.38) mm was significantly greater than the L5-S1 (11.25 ± 1.32) mm (p = 0.04). Body height, the intervertebral height of pathological segment, and the middle intervertebral heigh of upper adjacent segment were highly positively correlated to the interbody cage height. The range of interbody cage height used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Chinese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases was: L3-4 (11.28 ± 3.29) mm ~ (12.76 ± 2.40) mm, L4-5 (11.62 ± 2.89) mm ~ (13.18 ± 1.91) mm, L5-S1 (10.52 ± 2.22) mm ~ (11.90 ± 2.80) mm. The regression equation of interbody cage height was: interbody cage height = 11.123-0.563 * (gender) + 0.149 * (the middle intervertebral height of pathological segment).

Conclusions

The selection of interbody cage height was influenced by sex, body height, pathological segment location, the intervertebral height of pathological segment and other factors. The interbody cage height for the lower lumbar spine mostly selected 11,12,13 mm, L3-4, L4-5 segment highly selective in general should not be less than 10 mm, and L5-S1 segments height was relatively small, usually not more than 13 mm. The interbody cage height might be selected based on the regression equation of interbody cage height. But, the regression equation maybe need to be verified in a prospective study.

Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF

Degenerative disc and facet joint disease of the lumbar spine is common in the ageing population, and is one of the most frequent causes of disability. Lumbar spondylosis may result in mechanical back pain, radicular and claudicant symptoms, reduced mobility and poor quality of life. Surgical interbody fusion of degenerative levels is an effective treatment option to stabilize the painful motion segment, and may provide indirect decompression of the neural elements, restore lordosis and correct deformity. The surgical options for interbody fusion of the lumbar spine include: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior to psoas (OLIF/ATP), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The indications may include: discogenic/facetogenic low back pain, neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, lumbar degenerative spinal deformity including symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. In general, traditional posterior approaches are frequently used with acceptable fusion rates and low complication rates, however they are limited by thecal sac and nerve root retraction, along with iatrogenic injury to the paraspinal musculature and disruption of the posterior tension band. Minimally invasive (MIS) posterior approaches have evolved in an attempt to reduce approach related complications. Anterior approaches avoid the spinal canal, cauda equina and nerve roots, however have issues with approach related abdominal and vascular complications. In addition, lateral and OLIF techniques have potential risks to the lumbar plexus and psoas muscle. The present study aims firstly to comprehensively review the available literature and evidence for different lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques. Secondly, we propose a set of recommendations and guidelines for the indications for interbody fusion options. Thirdly, this article provides a description of each approach, and illustrates the potential benefits and disadvantages of each technique with reference to indication and spine level performed.

Unintended durotomy in lumbar degenerative spinal surgery: a 10-year systematic review of the literature

OBJECT

Unintended durotomy is a common occurrence during lumbar spinal surgery, particularly in surgery for degenerative spinal conditions, with the reported incidence rate ranging from 0.3% to 35%. The authors performed a systematic literature review on unintended lumbar spine durotomy, specifically aiming to identify the incidence of durotomy during spinal surgery for lumbar degenerative conditions. In addition, the authors analyzed the incidence of durotomy when minimally invasive surgical approaches were used as compared with that following a traditional midline open approach.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search using the term “lumbar durotomy” (under the 2015 medical subject heading [MeSH] “cerebrospinal fluid leak”) was conducted on May 13, 2015, for English-language medical literature published in the period from January 1, 2005, to May 13, 2015. The resulting papers were categorized into 3 groups: 1) those that evaluated unintended durotomy rates during open-approach lumbar spinal surgery, 2) those that evaluated unintended durotomy rates during minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), and 3) those that evaluated durotomy rates in comparable cohorts undergoing MISS versus open-approach lumbar procedures for similar lumbar pathology.

RESULTS

The MEDLINE search yielded 116 results. A review of titles produced 22 potentially relevant studies that described open surgical procedures. After a thorough review of individual papers, 19 studies (comprising 15,965 patients) pertaining to durotomy rates during open-approach lumbar surgery were included for analysis. Using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) ranking criteria, there were 7 Level 3 prospective studies and 12 Level 4 retrospective studies. In addition, the authors also included 6 studies (with a total of 1334 patients) that detailed rates of durotomy during minimally invasive surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. In the MISS analysis, there were 2 prospective and 4 retrospective studies. Finally, the authors included 5 studies (with a total of 1364 patients) that directly compared durotomy rates during open-approach versus minimally invasive procedures. Studies of open-approach surgery for lumbar degenerative disease reported a total of 1031 durotomies across all procedures, for an overall durotomy rate of 8.11% (range 2%–20%). Prospectively designed studies reported a higher rate of durotomy than retrospective studies (9.57% vs 4.32%, p = 0.05). Selected MISS studies reported a total of 93 durotomies for a combined durotomy rate of 6.78%. In studies of matched cohorts comparing open-approach surgery with MISS, the durotomy rates were 7.20% (34 durotomies) and 7.02% (68), respectively, which were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal surgery for lumbar degenerative disease carries a significant rate of unintended durotomy, regardless of the surgical approach selected by the surgeon. Interpretation of unintended durotomy rates for lumbar surgery is limited by a lack of prospective and cohort-matched controlled studies.