Quality-of-life outcomes with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based on long-term analysis of 304 consecutive patients

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Perez Cruet, Mick J ^a   Hussain, Namath S ^a   White, G Zachary ^a   Begun, Evan M ^a   Collins, Robert A ^a   Fahim, Daniel K ^a   Hiremath, Girish K ^a   Adbi, Fadumo M ^a   Yacob, Sammy A ^a  

^a OAKLAND UNIVERSITY WILLIAM BEAUMONT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

lumbar interbody fusion; minimally invasive spine surgery; minimally invasive transforaminal; patient outcomes; percutaneous pedicle screws; umbar fusion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL FUSION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894052495     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000078     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Resnick D, Choudhri T, Dailey A, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2: 673-8.
2. Davis H. Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979-1990. Spine J 1994; 19: 1117-23.
3. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine J 1999; 24: 1023-8. (Pubitemid 29222625)
4. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine J 1996; 21: 941-4. (Pubitemid 26127214)
5. Styf J, Willen J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscle during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine J 1998; 23: 354-8. (Pubitemid 28109862)
6. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine J 1994; 19: 2598-2602. (Pubitemid 24356465)
7. Schwender J, Holly L, Rouben D, Foley K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18 ( suppl 1 ): S1-6. (Pubitemid 44620794)
8. Mummaneni P, Rodts G. The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 2005; 57: 256-61.
9. Pelton M, Phillips F, Singh K. A comparison of peri-operative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers' compensation claims treated with MIS or open TLIF. Spine J 2012; 15: 1914-9.
10. Dhall S, Wang M, Mummaneni P. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 9: 560-5.
11. Meyerding H. Spondylolisthesis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1932; 54: 371-7.
12. Perez de la Torre RA, Kelkar PS, Beier A, et al. Decompression, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, reduction, and percutaneous pedicle screw fi xation. In: Perez-Cruet MJ, Beisse RW, Pimenta L, Kim DH, eds. Minimally Invasive Spine Fusion: Techniques and Operative Nuances. St. Louis: Quality Medical Publishing; 2011: 345-67.
13. Glassman S, Copay A, Berven S, et al. Defi ning substantial clinical benefi t following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1839-47.
14. Glassman S, Gornet M, Branch C, et al. MOS Short Form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 2006; 6: 21-6. (Pubitemid 43079170)
15. Lee K, Yue W, YeoW, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2012; 21: 2265-70.
16. Peng C, Yue W, Poh S, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2009; 34: 1385-9.
17. 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.
18. Indrakanti S, Weber M, Takemoto S, et al. Value-based care in the management of spinal disorders: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis. Clin Orthop and Relat Res 2012; 470: 1106-23.
19. Parker S, Lerner J, McGirt M. Effect of minimally invasive technique on return to work and narcotic use following transforaminal lumbar inter-body fusion: a review. Professional Case Management 2012; 17: 229-35.
20. Wang M, Lerner J, Lesko J, et al. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a us national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25: 324-8.
21. McGirt M, Parker S, Lerner J, et al. Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14: 771-8.