Anterior Dislodgement of a Fusion Cage after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

Oh, Hyeong Seok; Lee, Sang-Ho; Hong, Seongwon

doi:10.3340/jkns.2013.54.2.128

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this procedure ultimately requires a partial vertebral body resection. Oh et al 8) similarly used the anterior approach for removal and replacement of the interbody cage; however, in this particular study, the patient also required a posterior approach for revision of the segmental instrumentation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Lateral Approach for the Removal of Migrated Interbody Cage: Taphole and Fixing Technique

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a revision surgery related with removal of failed interbody cage is required, going through the previous passage can lead to a higher risk of neurological deficits or incidental dural injuries. Recently, the lateral approach has become a popular method instead of the conventional anterior or posterior approaches. The lateral approach is also useful method to remove failed interbody cage previously placed and re-do interbody fusion with lower risks compared to revision surgery via previous passage. However, there is still some difficulty in retrieving the interbody cage from the intervertebral space because of no spacious passage, subsidence, and uncontrolled movable cage. In this study, we introduce our experience that we removed failed interbody cage more easily with only the simple additional steps of making a taphole and fixing the cage using a thread-tipped stick.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Lateral Approach for the Removal of Migrated Interbody Cage: Taphole and Fixing Technique

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this procedure ultimately required a partial vertebral body resection. Oh, et al similarly used the anterior approach for removal and replacement of the interbody cage, but in this particular study, the patient also required a posterior approach for revision of the segmental instrumentation [ 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Note – Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine for the Removal of Interbody Cages

Moisi

Page

Paulson

et al. 2015

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revision surgery to address the migration or fracture of a lumbar interbody cage can be technically challenging. Scar tissue and fibrosis, among other anatomic barriers, can make removal of the cage a complicated procedure, potentially increasing postoperative pain as well as the probability of neurologic deficits. Use of the lateral surgical technique for removal of the cage can avoid these potential complications. In this case report, we describe the removal of interbody cages through a lateral approach in three patients without the necessity of additional posterior hardware revision.

show abstract

“…Surgical complications associated with the unilaterally inserted cages used in TLIF have also been reported [7][8][9] . Since 2007, the new type of boomerang-shaped cage with a special inserter has been used at our hospital (Asao General Hospital) 10) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Boomerang-Shaped Cage with Traditional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Ishihara¹,

Morishita²,

Miyaki³

et al. 2019

Spine Surg Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with a boomerang-shaped cage and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) according to fused level and elucidate whether TLIF could replace PLIF at all lumbar levels. Methods: The study investigated 128 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent a single-level TLIF or traditional PLIF. Intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and recovery rate were analyzed. Percent slip, disc height, and local lordosis at the fused level were measured using X-ray images from preoperation to the final follow-up. Results: No significant differences in recovery rate were observed at any level. The operative time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the TLIF group at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. There were no significant differences in disc height or local lordosis at the L3/4 and L4/5 levels, and a satisfactory level of maintenance after the operation was achieved in both groups. However, at the L5/S1 level, postoperative maintenance after TLIF could not be achieved, and the obtained disc height and local lordosis in TLIF significantly decreased. Conclusions: Compared with traditional PLIF, TLIF was a less invasive procedure with a shorter operative time and lesser blood loss. TLIF could obtain similar local lordosis and disc height as PLIF at the L3/4 and L4/5 levels. At the L5/S1 level, the postoperative maintenance of local lordosis and disc height after TLIF was inferior to that after PLIF. On the basis of our results, we do not recommend performing TLIF at only the L5/S1 level.

show abstract

Anterior Dislodgement of a Fusion Cage after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Application of Lateral Approach for the Removal of Migrated Interbody Cage: Taphole and Fixing Technique

Application of Lateral Approach for the Removal of Migrated Interbody Cage: Taphole and Fixing Technique

Technical Note – Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine for the Removal of Interbody Cages

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Boomerang-Shaped Cage with Traditional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About