Treatment of Lumbar Instability: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

3D printed PGCL@PLA/10CSPL composite scaffolds loaded with fibronectin 1 for intervertebral disc degeneration treatment

Restoration of disc height and biomechanical function is essential for intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) treatment. Removing abnormal nucleus pulposus (NP) tissue is an important step to facilitate bony fusion during the healing process. We analyzed publicly available single-cell transcriptome data for human normal and degenerative NP to identify genes associated with NP degeneration. A novel poly(glycolide-co-caprolactone)@polylactide (PLA)-b-aniline pentamer (AP)-b-PLA/chitosan-ϵ-polylysine (PGCL@1PAP/10CSPL) scaffold with good biocompatibility and electroactivity was designed and fabricated as an implant for IDD treatment using 3D printing technology. The PGCL@1PAP/10CSPL scaffold exhibited superior hydrophilicity, mechanical properties, cytocompatibility, and antibacterial activity compared to PGCL. Fibronectin 1 (FN1), identified from single-cell transcriptome analysis, was loaded into the PGCL@1PAP/10CSPL scaffold to accelerate the abnormal NP degeneration.In vitroandin vivoexperiments indicated that the PGCL@1PAP/10CSPL-FN1 scaffold enhanced osteogenic differentiation, promoted angiogenesis, and facilitated the removal of damaged disc tissue. This study introduces a novel implant system with desirable mechanical strength and unique bone-promoting and vascularizing properties for lumbar interbody fusion in IDD treatment.

The anterior and traverse cage can provide optimal biomechanical performance for both traditional and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-established surgical treatment for patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease; however, the optimal position for the interbody fusion cage in TLIF procedures for reducing cage-related complications remains uncertain. The present study aims to compare the biomechanical effects between different cage positions in TLIF and percutaneous endoscopic-TLIF (PE-TLIF).

METHOD

An intact finite element model of L3-L5 from computed tomography images of a 25-year-old healthy male without any lumbar disease was reconstructed and validated. TLIF and PE-TLIF were performed on L4-L5 with bilateral pedicle screws fixation. Two surgical finite element models were subjected to loads with six degrees of freedom. The range of motion (ROM) and von Mises stress of the implantations and endplates were measured for the anterior, middle, and posterior district and the traverse or oblique direction of the cage respectively.

RESULTS

As the cage was implanted forward, the ROMs in the fused L4-L5 segments and the von Mises stress of the cage and endplates decreased while the von Mises stress of the screws increased; this was also shown in the traverse cage when compared with the oblique cage (A-90-compared with A-45- had a 31.3%, 1.7%, 12.6%, and 5.7% decrease in FL, EX, LB and AR). The ROMs (TLIF A-45 increase of 80.8%, 23.8%, and 12.2% in FL, EX, and LB when compared with PE-TLIF), cage stress, and endplate stress of PE-TLIF were lower than those of TLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the ROM of the fusion segments, implanting the cage in the anterior district in the traverse direction can effectively enhance the fusion segment stiffness, thus contributing to the stability of the lumbar spine after fusion. It can also cause less cage stress and endplate stress, which indicates its beneficial effect in avoiding cage injury or subsidence. However, the higher stress of the pedicle screws and rods indicates higher failure risk. PE-TLIF had better biomechanical performance than TLIF. Therefore, it is recommended that the surgeon implant the cage in the anterior district of the L5 vertebra's upper endplate in the traverse direction using the PE-TLIF technique.

Does the Cage Position in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Determine Unilateral versus Bilateral Screw Placement?: A Review of the Literature

This literature review examines the relative placement of the interbody cage with respect to the unilateral screw construct to address the need for bilateral screw placement versus unilateral screw placement. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a widely used technique for correcting lumbar intervertebral pathologies. This review addresses the necessity for further study on the effects of the relative position of intervertebral cage placement on the outcome of lumbar spine surgery after TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Previous studies have addressed various factors, including posterior screw fixation, cage size, cage shape, and number of levels fused, that impact the biomechanics of the lumbar spine following TLIF. A simple survey of the literature was conducted. A search of the English literature was conducted using the keywords ‘TLIF,’ ‘transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,’ ‘graft placement,’ ‘graft position,’ ‘cage position,’ ‘cage placement,’ ‘unilateral pedicle screw,’ ‘unilateral TLIF cage placement,’ ‘lumbar biomechanics,’ ‘lumbar stability,’ ‘lumbar fusion,’ and ‘lumbar intervertebral cage’ with various combinations of the operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ and no date restrictions. Seventeen articles in the English literature that were most relevant to this research question were identified. To the best of our knowledge, there are no published data addressing the effects of cage placement relative to the unilateral screw on lumbar stability in TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Investigation of the effects of cage placement is, thus, warranted to achieve optimal clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation.

Contralateral radiculopathy after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A Case Series

RATIONALE

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective treatment for patients with degenerative lumbar disc disorder. Contralateral radiculopathy, as a complication of TLIF, has been recognized in this institution, but is rarely reported in the literature.

PATIENT CONCERNS

In this article, we report 2 cases of contralateral radiculopathy after TLIF in our institution and its associated complications.

DIAGNOSES

In the 2 cases, the postoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance image (MRI) showed obvious upward movement of the superior articular process, leading to contralateral foraminal stenosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Revision surgery was done at once to partially resect the opposite superior facet and to relieve nerve root compression.

OUTCOMES

After revision surgery, the contralateral radiculopathy disappeared.

LESSONS

Contralateral radiculopathy is an avoidable potential complication. It is very important to create careful preoperative plans and to conscientiously plan the use of intraoperative techniques. In case of postoperative contralateral leg pain, the patients should be examined by CT and MRI. If CT and MRI show that the superior articular process significantly migrated upwards, which leads to contralateral foraminal stenosis, revision surgery should be done at once to partially resect the contralateral superior facet so as to relieve nerve root compression and avoid possible long-term impairment.

A Narrative Review of Lumbar Fusion Surgery With Relevance to Chiropractic Practice

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this narrative review was to describe the most common spinal fusion surgical procedures, address the clinical indications for lumbar fusion in degeneration cases, identify potential complications, and discuss their relevance to chiropractic management of patients after surgical fusion.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched from the beginning of the record through March 31, 2015, for English language articles related to lumbar fusion or arthrodesis or both and their incidence, procedures, complications, and postoperative chiropractic cases. Articles were retrieved and evaluated for relevance. The bibliographies of selected articles were also reviewed.

RESULTS

The most typical lumbar fusion procedures are posterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, transforaminal interbody fusion, and lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Fair level evidence supports lumbar fusion procedures for degenerative spondylolisthesis with instability and for intractable low back pain that has failed conservative care. Complications and development of chronic pain after surgery is common, and these patients frequently present to chiropractic physicians. Several reports describe the potential benefit of chiropractic management with spinal manipulation, flexion-distraction manipulation, and manipulation under anesthesia for postfusion low back pain. There are no published experimental studies related specifically to chiropractic care of postfusion low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This article describes the indications for fusion, common surgical practice, potential complications, and relevant published chiropractic literature. This review includes 10 cases that showed positive benefits from chiropractic manipulation, flexion-distraction, and/or manipulation under anesthesia for postfusion lumbar pain. Chiropractic care may have a role in helping patients in pain who have undergone lumbar fusion surgery.

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.

Outcomes of extended transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylosis

This study aims to assess the results of extended transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for a two surgeon, single institution series. In total, extended TLIF with bilateral decompression was performed in 57 patients. Pain, American Spinal Injury Association scores, patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), perioperative indices and radiographic measurements were recorded and analysed. The surgeries were performed between February 2011 and January 2014 on 38 women and 19 men. The mean patient age was 62.86 years, and the mean BMI was 30.31 kg/m(2). In 49 patients, spondylolisthesis was the primary indication. The mean intraoperative time was 284.65 min, and this decreased as the series progressed. The median length of stay was 5 days (range: 2-9). The surgical complication rate was 19.3%. Two patients died from cardiopulmonary complications. Single level TLIF was performed in 78.9% of the cohort, with L4/5 the most commonly fused level. Significant pain reduction was achieved from a mean (± standard deviation) preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) of 8.28 ± 1.39 to 1.50 ± 1.05 at 12 months postoperatively. No patients deteriorated neurologically. Spondylolisthesis was significantly corrected from a preoperative mean of 6.82 mm to 2.80 mm postoperatively. Although there is a learning curve associated with the procedure, extended TLIF with bilateral facet joint removal and decompression appeared to be a safe and effective alternative to other fusion techniques, and our results were comparable to other published case series. The stabilisation and correction of spinal deformity reduces pain, aids neurologic recovery and improves quality of life.

Comparison of the different surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion

This review will outline the history of spinal fusion. It will compare the different approaches currently in use for interbody fusion. A comparison of the techniques, including minimally invasive surgery and graft options will be included. Lumbar interbody fusion is a commonly performed surgical procedure for a variety of spinal disorders, especially degenerative disease. Currently this procedure is performed using anterior, lateral, transforaminal and posterior approaches. Minimally invasive techniques have been increasing in popularity in recent years. A posterior approach is frequently used and has good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the thecal and nerve root retraction. The transforaminal interbody fusion avoids some of these complications and is therefore preferable in some situations, especially revision surgery. An anterior approach avoids the spinal cord and cauda equina all together, but has issues with visceral exposure complications. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has a risk of lumbar plexus injury with dissection through the psoas muscle. Studies show less intraoperative blood loss for minimally invasive techniques, but there is no long-term data. Iliac crest is the gold standard for bone graft, although adjuncts such as bone morphogenetic proteins are being used more frequently, despite their controversial history. More high-level studies are needed to make generalisations regarding the outcomes of one technique compared with another.