全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Two-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Surgical Technique and Illustrative Cases

DOI: 10.1155/2013/143029

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common procedure performed by spine surgeons. The indications for TLIF include back pain and radiculopathy as a consequence of canal or foraminal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, or deformity. Minimally invasive techniques (MIS) have proven to be effective for single-level TLIF and are associated with less blood loss, fewer wound complications and infections, faster recovery, and decreased hospital cost. To date, there is very little data on 2-level MIS TLIF. We present our technique for 2-level MIS TLIF with case illustrations and a review of the literature. 1. Introduction Lumbar arthrodesis is generally indicated in the treatment of spondylotic diseases of the spine including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease, facet arthropathy, and scoliosis. While posterolateral fusion has been shown to be clinically efficacious and safe, many advocate interbody fusion because it affords the luxury of placing the graft under compression forces, can greatly restore lordosis and disc height, and permits indirect decompression and foraminal distraction [1–7]. Lumbar interbody fusion was first described by Cloward [8, 9] in 1952 via a posterior approach (PLIF), which proved effective in achieving interbody fusion but required significant nerve root and thecal sac retraction [10]. Harms and Rolinger subsequently described a less invasive approach in 1982 via transforaminal route (TLIF) [11]. This approach provides a more lateral point of access to the disc space, thus limiting retraction of the neural elements. While clinical outcomes have been favorable with both of these approaches, the amount of muscle dissection and retraction required to expose the spine was thought to adversely affect patient recovery [12–18]. As an alternative to these standard open techniques and with technological advancements in illumination, retractors, and magnification, Foley et al. introduced the minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF in an attempt to reduce muscle injury associated with the standard subperiosteal exposure [1, 2]. This approach involved a paramedian incision and exploits natural anatomic corridors. As described, the MIS TLIF is an effective option for treatment of the aforementioned conditions that affect the lumbar spine. Minimally invasive or minimal access techniques offer several advantages over their traditional open counterparts. The amount of muscle dissection and retraction necessary to expose the spine in a standard approach leads to significant muscle damage and atrophy [12–15, 17, 18].

References

[1]  K. T. Foley, L. T. Holly, and J. D. Schwender, “Minimally invasive lumbar fusion,” Spine, vol. 28, pp. S26–S35, 2003.
[2]  K. T. Foley and M. A. Lefkowitz, “Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery,” Clinical Neurosurgery, vol. 49, pp. 499–517, 2002.
[3]  J. W. German and K. T. Foley, “Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment,” Spine, vol. 30, no. 16, pp. S52–S59, 2005.
[4]  R. E. Isaacs, V. K. Podichetty, P. Santiago et al., “Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 98–105, 2005.
[5]  L. T. Khoo, S. Palmer, D. T. Laich, and R. G. Fessler, “Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion,” Neurosurgery, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 166–181, 2002.
[6]  K.-T. Kim, S.-H. Lee, K.-S. Suk, and S.-C. Bae, “The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion,” Spine, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 712–716, 2006.
[7]  J. D. Schwender, L. T. Holly, D. P. Rouben, and K. T. Foley, “Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results,” Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. S1–S6, 2005.
[8]  R. B. Cloward, “The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. III. Method of use of banked bone,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 136, no. 6, pp. 987–992, 1952.
[9]  R. B. Cloward, “The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 154–168, 1953.
[10]  C. D. Ray, “Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions,” Spine, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 667–680, 1997.
[11]  J. Harms and H. Rolinger, “A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion,” Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Ihre Grenzgebiete, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 343–347, 1982.
[12]  G. Datta, K. K. Gnanalingham, D. Peterson et al., “Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction?” Neurosurgery, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1413–1420, 2004.
[13]  R. Gejo, H. Matsui, Y. Kawaguchi, H. Ishihara, and H. Tsuji, “Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery,” Spine, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1023–1028, 1999.
[14]  Y. Kawaguchi, H. Matsui, and H. Tsuji, “Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: part 1: histologic and histochemical analyses in rats,” Spine, vol. 19, no. 22, pp. 2590–2597, 1994.
[15]  Y. Kawaguchi, H. Matsui, and H. Tsuji, “Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans,” Spine, vol. 19, no. 22, pp. 2598–2602, 1994.
[16]  T. G. Mayer, H. Vanharanta, R. J. Gatchel et al., “Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients,” Spine, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 33–36, 1989.
[17]  T. Sihvonen, A. Herno, L. Paljarvi, O. Airaksinen, J. Partanen, and A. Tapaninaho, “Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome,” Spine, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 575–581, 1993.
[18]  J. R. Styf and J. Willén, “The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans,” Spine, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 354–358, 1998.
[19]  L. L. Wiltse, J. G. Bateman, R. H. Hutchinson, and W. E. Nelson, “The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery A, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 919–926, 1968.
[20]  K. T. Foley and S. K. Gupta, “Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2002.
[21]  K.-M. Scheufler, H. Dohmen, and V. I. Vougioukas, “Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability,” Neurosurgery, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. S-203–S-212, 2007.
[22]  A. Ghahreman, R. D. Ferch, P. J. Rao, and N. Bogduk, “Minimal access versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of spondylolisthesis,” Neurosurgery, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 296–304, 2010.
[23]  C. W. B. Peng, W. M. Yue, S. Y. Poh, W. Yeo, and S. B. Tan, “Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,” Spine, vol. 34, no. 13, pp. 1385–1389, 2009.
[24]  O. Adogwa, S. L. Parker, A. Bydon, J. Cheng, and M. J. McGirt, “Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life,” Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 479–484, 2011.
[25]  S. L. Parker, O. Adogwa, A. Bydon, J. Cheng, and M. J. McGirt, “Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 78, pp. 178–184, 2012.
[26]  S. L. Parker, S. K. Mendenhall, D. N. Shau, et al., “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis,” World Neurosurgery, 2013.
[27]  M. A. Olsen, J. Mayfield, C. Lauryssen et al., “Risk factors for surgical site infection in spinal surgery,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 149–155, 2003.
[28]  N. Patel, B. Bagan, S. Vadera et al., “Obesity and spine surgery: relation to perioperative complications,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 291–297, 2007.
[29]  A. E. Telfeian, G. T. Reiter, S. R. Durham, and P. Marcotte, “Spine surgery in morbidly obese patients,” Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 20–24, 2002.
[30]  C. Wimmer, H. Gluch, M. Franzreb, and M. Ogon, “Predisposing factors for infection in spine surgery: a survey of 850 spinal procedures,” Journal of Spinal Disorders, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 124–128, 1998.
[31]  D. S. Rosen, S. D. Ferguson, A. T. Ogden, D. Huo, and R. G. Fessler, “Obesity and self-reported outcome after minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion surgery,” Neurosurgery, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 956–960, 2008.
[32]  J.-M. Voyadzis, “The learning curve in minimally invasive spinal surgery,” Seminars in Spine Surgery, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 9–13, 2011.
[33]  A. Habib, Z. A. Smith, C. D. Lawton, and R. G. Fessler, “Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge,” Minimally Invasive Surgery, vol. 2012, Article ID 657342, 9 pages, 2012.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133