Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A review of techniques and outcomes

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue SUPPL. 26S, 2010, Pages

  Karikari, Isaac O ^a   Isaacs, Robert E ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

MIS; morbidity; outcomes; PLIF; TLIF

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; LUMBAR SPINAL CORD; LUMBAR SPINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINAL FUSION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78650928717     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. III: methods and use of banked bone. Ann Surg 1952;136: 987-92.
2. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I: indications, operative technique, after care. J Neuro-surg 1953;10:154-68.
3. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982;120:343-7.
4. Ray CD. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 1997; 22:667-80.
5. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforami-nal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006;20:E6.
6. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 1999;24:1023-8.
7. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine 1994;19:2598-602. (Pubitemid 24356465)
8. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996;21:941-4.
9. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, et al. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine 1989;14:33-6.
10. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, et al. Local denervation atrophy of paraspi-nal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 1993;18:575-81.
11. Styf JR, Willen J. 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 1998;23:354-8.
12. Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, et al. Back pain and disability afterlumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction? Neurosur-gery 2004;54:1413-20.
13. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 2002;49:499-517.
14. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003;28:S26-35.
15. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, et al. Minimally invasive microendos-copy-assisted transforaminal interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;3:98-105.
16. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforami-nal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18(suppl 1):S1-6.
17. Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 2002;51(suppl 2):166-81.
18. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:2257-70.
19. German JW, Foley KT. Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 2005;30(suppl 16):S52-9.
20. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, et al. The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine 2006;31:712-6.
21. Selznick LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:207-13.
22. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2010;1:12.
23. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 2010;35:1615-20.
24. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zheng Z, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isth-mic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 2010;19:1780 -4.
25. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009;34:1385-9.
26. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1683-8.
27. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open trans-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:560-5.
28. Park P, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E16.
29. Lee DY, Jung TG, Lee SH. Single-level instrumented mini-open transforami-nal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9: 137-44.
30. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 2007;60(4 suppl 2):203-12; discussion 212-13.
31. Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar in-terbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20:E10.
32. Beringer WF, Mobasser JP. Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 2006;20:E4.
33. Anand N, Hamilton JF, Perri B, et al. Cantilever TLIF with structural allo-graft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome. Spine 2006;31:E748-53.
34. Jang JS, Lee SH. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neu-rosurg Spine 2005;3:218-23.
35. Mummaneni PV, Rodts GE Jr. The mini-open transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion. Neurosurgery 2005;57:256-61.
36. Joseph V, Rampersaud YR. Heterotopic bone formation with the use of rhBMP2 in posterior minimal access interbody fusion: a CT analysis. Spine 2007;32:2885-90.
37. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine In press.