Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disk disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: Minimally invasive versus open surgery

Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2015, Pages E559-E564

  Brodano, Giovanni B ^a   Martikos, Konstantinos ^a   Lolli, Francesco ^a   Gasbarrini, Alessandro ^a   Cioni, Alfredo ^a   Bandiera, Stefano ^a   Di Silvestre, Mario ^a   Boriani, Stefano ^a   Greggi, Tiziana ^a  

^a RIZZOLI ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Clinical outcomes; Degenerative lumbar spine; Degenerative spondylolisthesis; Minimally invasive approach; Open approach; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LEG PAIN; LENGTH OF STAY; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SAFETY; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FORAMEN MAGNUM; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PEDICLE SCREW; PROCEDURES;

ADULT; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FORAMEN MAGNUM; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PEDICLE SCREWS; SPINAL FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84948569160     PISSN: 15360652     EISSN: 15392465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000034     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Evans JH. Biomechanics of lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985; 193: 38-46.
2. Voor MJ, Mehta S, Wang M, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord. 1998; 11: 328-334.
3. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120: 343-347.
4. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, et al. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26: 567-571.
5. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O'Brien MF, et al. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002; 15: 31-38.
6. Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications and early results. Neurosurgery. 2001; 48: 569-574.
7. Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery. 2004; 54: 368-374.
8. Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18: 337-346.
9. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine. 2003; 28: S26-S35.
10. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18: S1-S6.
11. Mummaneni PV, Rodts GE Jr. The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2005; 57: 256-261.
12. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, et al. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J. 2005; 14: 887-894.
13. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 20: E6.
14. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007; 60: 203-213.
15. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 1996; 21: 941-944.
16. Styf JR, Willén 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 1998; 23: 354-358.
17. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine. 1999; 24: 1023-1028.
18. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljiarvi L, et al. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine. 1993; 18: 575-581.
19. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 2010; 1: 12.
20. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34: 1385-1389.
21. Dhall SS, Wang My, Mummanenni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008; 9: 560-565.
22. Park Y, Ha YW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine. 2007; 32: 537-543.
23. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009; 33: 1683-1688.
24. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zheng Z, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19: 1780-1784.
25. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine. 2010; 35: 1615-1620.