Minimally Invasive Fusion and Fixation Techniques

Powers, Ciarán J.; Isaacs, Robert E.

doi:10.1016/j.nec.2006.06.004

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some patients require fusion of one or more spinal segments to treat their condition adequately. The chances of successful lumbar spinal fusion are increased significantly by the addition of a rigid fixation device [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Nagaty¹,

Amer²,

Hassan³

et al. 2020

IJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to assess the difference between minimal invasive TLIF surgery and conventional TLIF surgery in cases of lytic spondylolisthesis, as regards pain, disability, hospital stay and complications. Lytic Spondylolisthesis patients may require fusion of one or more spinal segments to treat their condition adequately. The chances of achieving a successful lumbar spinal fusion has increased. TLIF technique is gradually being accepted in these cases and widely used by most spine surgeons. Minimal invasive TLIF is a recent trend for spinal fusion. This is a prospective randomized comparative study conducted from March 2016 to December 2018 included forty patients with low grade lytic spondylolisthesis that underwent surgeries. Twenty patients underwent MI-TLIF through percutaneous posterior lumbar pedicular screw fixation, microscopic minimally invasive transformational discectomy and interbody cage fusion (patients group "A") and another twenty patients underwent traditional open posterior lumbar pedicular screw fixation and TLIF (control group "B"). In our results, both surgical techniques showed improvement in pain and function within 12 months (follow up period), but group A showed statistically significant improvement in pain and function in the 1 st three months. Regarding blood loss, need for transfusion and hospital stay, group A showed statistically significant better results. As a conclusion, minimally invasive TLIF is a better option in surgical management of spondylolisthesis especially in the early postoperative period.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Nagaty¹,

Amer²,

Hassan³

et al. 2020

IJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with the continuing improvements of implants and surgical techniques with the subsequent diminution of surgical approaches, reduction of soft-tissue dissection and thus less exposure of the bony structures, the demand for performant and high-resolution intra-operative imaging has grown. Without the possibility of real-time visualization of the anatomy of bony structures, as well as the position of instruments and implants in relation to the bone and the ability for evaluating the reconstruction of joint surfaces and bony alignment, the rapid evolution of minimally invasive surgery would not have been possible 1,2 . Examples include percutaneous placement of pedicle screws in thoracolumbar spine surgery, closed reduction, and tunnelled placement of implants in the treatment of tibial or femoral metaphyseal fractures with specially designed plates or calcaneus osteosyntheses with slit-in plates that reduce the length of the incision to the diameter of the plate 3,4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra-operative imaging in trauma surgery

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reconstruction of anatomical joint surfaces, limb alignment and rotational orientation are crucial in the treatment of fractures in terms of preservation of function and range of motion. To assess reduction and implant position intra-operatively, mobile C-arms are mandatory to immediately and continuously control these parameters.Usually, these devices are operated by OR staff or radiology technicians and assessed by the surgeon who is performing the procedure. Moreover, due to special objectives in the intra-operative setting, the situation cannot be compared with standard radiological image acquisition. Thus, surgeons need to be trained and educated to ensure correct technical conduct and interpretation of radiographs.It is essential to know the standard views of the joints and long bones and how to position the patient and C-arm in order to acquire these views. Additionally, the operating field must remain sterile, and the radiation exposure of the patient and staff must be kept as low as possible.In some situations, especially when reconstructing complex joint fractures or spinal injuries, complete evaluation of critical aspects of the surgical results is limited in two-dimensional views and fluoroscopy. Intra-operative three-dimensional imaging using special C-arms offers a valuable opportunity to improve intra-operative assessment and thus patient outcome.In this article, common fracture situations in trauma surgery as well as special circumstances that the surgeon may encounter are addressed.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:541-549. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170074

show abstract

“…First introduced in 1997 by Foley and Smith for the microscopic decompression of spinal stenosis, MISS is now being applied to a broad spectrum of pathologies, including, but not limited to, adult spinal deformities, trauma, and malignancies [ 3 - 6 ]. In the surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MISS procedures, including unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have become popular procedures [ 4 , 7 , 8 ]. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is another procedure that can be performed using minimally invasive techniques [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy/Discectomy, Transforaminal Lumbar, and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review

Imada

Huynh

Drazin

2017

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISS) are becoming increasingly favored as alternatives to open spine procedures because of the reduced blood loss, postoperative pain, and recovery time. Studies have shown mixed results regarding the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive procedures compared to the traditional, open counterparts. The objectives of this systematic analysis are to compare clinical outcomes between the three MISS and open procedures: (1) laminectomy/discectomy, (2) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and (3) posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The Cochrane and PubMed databases were queried according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and blood loss. A total of 32 studies were included in the analysis. Of the three procedures investigated, only MISS TLIF showed significantly improved VAS for leg pain (p = 0.02), ODI (p = 0.05), and reduced blood loss (p = 0.005). MISS-laminectomy/discectomy, TLIF, and PLIF appear to be similar in terms of postoperative pain and perioperative blood loss. MISS TLIF is perhaps more effective in specific outcome measures and results in less intraoperative blood loss than open TLIF.

show abstract

Minimally Invasive Fusion and Fixation Techniques

Cited by 10 publications

References 52 publications

Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Intra-operative imaging in trauma surgery

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy/Discectomy, Transforaminal Lumbar, and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About