Clinical Study
Outcomes of extended transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylosis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.05.027Get rights and content

Abstract

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/m2. 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.

Introduction

Fusion of the spine was first described in 1911 by Albee et al. as an operation for Pott’s disease, using a tibial graft for stabilization, [1] and by Hibbs et al. for stabilizing spinal deformities such as scoliosis [2]. Chandler et al. were the first to use spinal fusion for treatment of lower back pain and sciatica [3]. Barr proposed the combined use of discectomy and fusion to overcome the problem of discectomy alone, which left patients with residual pain due to underlying structural disc weakness [4].

Lumbar interbody fusion is now an accepted treatment for a variety of spinal disorders including trauma, infectious and neoplastic conditions [5]. It involves placement of an implant (spacer, graft or cage) within the intervertebral space, after a discectomy and end plate preparation. Currently, lumbar interbody fusion is performed using four main approaches, posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF). There is no evidence that one approach is superior to the others. These operations can also be performed using mini-open or minimally invasive (MIS) approaches [6]. Interbody fusion has been reported to have lower rates of postoperative complications and pseudoarthrosis [7], [8].

Posterolateral fusion places the graft in the posterolateral gutter to allow fusion from one transverse process to another. This avoids stenosis, which can be caused by a direct posterior approach to fusion [10], [9]. The TLIF, a modified and unilateral approach to the PLIF, was first described by Harms et al. in 1982 [11]. It gained popularity after further work by Harms et al. in the 1990s [12]. The technique was developed with the view to achieve a circumferential fusion, with minimal risk to neural structures or the need for two staged operations. Retraction on the neural structures in TLIF is less than PLIF, and hence, can be safely performed above L2 as there is less conus medullaris retraction and risk for injury. TLIF preserves the interspinous ligament and spinous processes posterior to the thecal sac, as well as other midline structural supports [13]. TLIF may be preferable for revision surgery of a prior posterior approach, especially when an anterior approach is problematic or the surgeon is not familiar with ALIF. These benefits have led to TLIF becoming increasingly popular over the last 15 years. Multiple versions of this technique have now emerged including unilateral instrumented fusion, unilateral pedicle screws with contralateral facet screws and, more recently, MIS techniques for interbody fusion with bilateral pedicle screws, with or without a posterolateral fusion [14], [15], [16], [17]. The limitations of TLIF include the significant muscle retraction and dissection, which can lead to postoperative pain, and delayed rehabilitation and impaired long term spinal motion [18]. Although we have listed the benefits here, and this is the authors’ preferred fusion technique, there is no evidence of any benefit of TLIF over other fusion techniques in long term studies of clinical symptoms and fusion rates.

The present study examines the experience of a two surgeon series with an extended TLIF for degenerative spinal disease. This technique is in contrast to the traditional TLIF, previously described by Hackenberg et al. and others [12], [30], [22], where the access to the intervertebral space is gained by unilateral facet joint resection. The traditional TLIF technique utilises a more minimal decompression than the extended TLIF described herein.

Section snippets

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 57 patients with extended TLIF, performed by the authors from February 2011 to January 2014. All patients had pre- and postoperative CT scans of the affected spinal area. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment score was used to document neurological function. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of pain before and after surgery. Pain was subclassified into severe (VAS 7–10), moderate (VAS 5–6) and mild (VAS 0–4). The Cobb

Clinical data

In total, 57 patients were included in this study, 19 men and 38 women. The mean age of the patients was 62.86 years (range: 25–82). The mean body mass index (BMI) for all patients was 30.31 kg/m2 (range: 20–51), for the men it was 28.46 kg/m2 and for the women 31.16 kg/m2. Two patients had emergency surgery, one for an acute foot drop (Patient 35), and another due to cauda equina syndrome (Patient 47). The remaining 55 had elective procedures, of which 49 patients (86%) had spondylolisthesis as

Discussion

After its first description by Harms et al. in the early 1980s [11], TLIF increased in popularity after further work by Harms et al. in the later part of the twentieth century [12]. The outcomes of the Swedish lumbar spine study demonstrated for the first time that lumbar fusion was significantly more effective than conservative treatment for low back pain [19], allowing lumbar fusion and TLIF to become the standard of care. The technique was initially developed with the view to achieve a

Conclusion

The present study is limited by its retrospective nature and relatively small patient population. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that bilateral decompression as part of a TLIF procedure is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional TLIF, which utilises a unilateral window through the facet joint to access the disc space. With this approach, pain, neurological status and spinal deformity were likely to improve after surgery. Future prospective and randomised studies should further define

Conflicts of Interest/Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to this research and its publication.

References (36)

  • R.S. Umeta et al.

    Techniques of lumbar-sacral spine fusion in spondylosis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

    Spine J

    (2011)
  • K. Singh et al.

    Treatment of lumbar instability: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

    Semin Spine Surg

    (2005)
  • F.H. Albee

    Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease

    J Am Med Assoc

    (1911)
  • R.A. Hibbs

    An operation for progressive spinal deformities

    NY Med J

    (1911)
  • F.A. Chandler

    Spinal fusion operations in the treatment of low back and sciatic pain

    J Am Med Assoc

    (1929)
  • J.S. Barr

    Ruptured intervertebral disc and sciatic pain

    J Bone Joint Surg

    (1947)
  • D.K. Resnick et al.

    Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis

    J Neurosurg Spine

    (2005)
  • J.C. Eck et al.

    Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion

    JAAOS

    (2007)
  • R.E. Wiltfong et al.

    Lumbar interbody fusion: review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods

    Curr Orthop Pract

    (2012)
  • R.N. Stauffer et al.

    Posterolateral lumbar-spine fusion analysis of Mayo clinic series

    J Bone Joint Surg

    (1972)
  • T.A. Zdeblick

    A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results

    Spine

    (1993)
  • J.R.H. Harms

    A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion

    Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb

    (1982)
  • J.J.D. Harms

    The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion

    Orthop Traumatol

    (1998)
  • J.D. Schwender et al.

    Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results

    J Spinal Disord Tech

    (2005)
  • S.A. Salehi et al.

    Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients

    Neurosurgery

    (2004)
  • W.S. Rosenberg et al.

    Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results

    Neurosurgery

    (2001)
  • J.-S. Jang et al.

    Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation

    J Neurosurg Spine

    (2005)
  • C. Seng et al.

    Five year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched pair comparison study

    Spine

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text