Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Direct Lumbar Interbody Fusion : Clinical and Radiological Results

被引:20
|
作者
Lee, Young Seok [1 ]
Kim, Young Baeg [1 ]
Park, Seung Won [1 ]
Chung, Chan [2 ]
机构
[1] Chung Ang Univ Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Seoul 156755, South Korea
[2] Dongguk Univ, Gyeongju Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Gyeongju, South Korea
关键词
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Direct lumbar interbody fusion; Segmental balance; Coronal balance; Fusion rate; BACK MUSCLE INJURY; TRANSPSOAS APPROACH; SPINE SURGERY; COMPLICATIONS; METAANALYSIS; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.3340/jkns.2014.56.6.469
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective : The use of direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) has gradually increased; however, no studies have directly compared DLIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We compared DLIF and TLIF on the basis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods : A retrospective review was performed on the medical records and radiographs of 98 and 81 patients who underwent TLIF and DLIF between January 2011 and December 2012. Clinical outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The preoperative and postoperative disc heights, segmental sagittal/coronal angles, and lumbar lordosis were measured on radiographs. Fusion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Results : DLIF was superior to TLIF regarding its ability to restore disc height, foraminal height, and coronal balanbe (p<0.001). As the extent of surgical level increased, DLIF displayed significant advantages over TLIF considering the operative time and EBL. However, fusion rates at 12 months post-operation were lower for DLIF (87.8%) than for TLIF (98.1%) (p=0.007). The changes of VAS and ODI between the TLIF and DLIF were not significantly different (p>0.05). Conclusion : Both DLIF and TLIF are less invasive and thus good surgical options for treating degenerative lumber diseases. DLIF has higher potential in increasing neural foramina and correcting coronal balance, and involves a shorter operative time and reduced EBL, in comparison with TLIF. However, DLIF displayed a lower fusion rate than TLIF, and caused complications related to the transpsoas approach.
引用
收藏
页码:469 / 474
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison between Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MISTLIF) for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Chandra, Vemula V. R.
    Prasad, Bodapati C. M.
    Hanu, Tammireddy G.
    Kale, Pavan G.
    NEUROLOGY INDIA, 2022, 70 (01) : 127 - 134
  • [32] Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comprehensive review
    Ahn, Yong
    Youn, Myung Soo
    Heo, Dong Hwa
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2019, 16 (05) : 373 - 380
  • [33] Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion
    Humphreys, SC
    Hodges, SD
    Patwardhan, AG
    Eck, JC
    Murphy, RB
    Covington, LA
    SPINE, 2001, 26 (05) : 567 - 571
  • [34] RADIOGRAPHIC RESTORATION OF LUMBAR ALIGNMENT AFTER TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION
    Jagannathan, Jay
    Sansur, Charles A.
    Oskouian, Rod J., Jr.
    Fu, Kai-Ming
    Shaffrey, Christopher I.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2009, 64 (05) : 955 - 963
  • [35] Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature
    Joseph, Jacob R.
    Smith, Brandon W.
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2015, 39 (04)
  • [36] Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Lin, Lu
    Liu, Xiao-Qin
    Shi, Lei
    Cheng, Si
    Wang, Zhi-Qiang
    Ge, Qi-Jun
    Gao, Ding-Zhi
    Ismail, Amadou Cheffou
    Ke, Zhen-Yong
    Chu, Lei
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2022, 9
  • [37] Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kou, Yuanqiao
    Chang, Jianjun
    Guan, Xiaoming
    Chang, Qiang
    Feng, Haoyu
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 152 : E352 - E368
  • [38] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [39] Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Santos, Daniel Encarnacion
    Nurmukhametov, Renat
    Donasov, Medet
    Volovich, Alexander
    Bozkurt, Ismail
    Wellington, Jack
    Lendof, Miguel Espinal
    Peralta, Ismael
    Chaurasia, Bipin
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOVERTEBRAL JUNCTION AND SPINE, 2024, 15 (01) : 99 - 104
  • [40] A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)
    Rathbone, John
    Rackham, Matthew
    Nielsen, David
    Lee, So Mang
    Hing, Wayne
    Riar, Sukhman
    Scott-Young, Matthew
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 32 (06) : 1911 - 1926