Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

Nie, James W.; Hartman, Timothy J.; Jacob, Kevin C.; Patel, Madhav R.; Vanjani, Nisheka N.; MacGregor, Keith R; Oyetayo, Omolabake O; Zheng, Eileen; Singh, Kern

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.09.003

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 29 Another study reported that patients undergoing revision fusion via TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1‐year postoperative mean outcomes. 28 For revision surgery of LLIF, a finite element study demonstrated that the lateral cage alone cannot provide adequate ROM restriction of the fusion segment and supplementary fixation is required to achieve favorable biomechanical stability, 30 which is similar to our results.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…A previous study designed four types of revision surgery for ASD after TLIF by replacing or preserving the primary implants, and found that the biomechanical effects were approximately identical among them 29 . Another study reported that patients undergoing revision fusion via TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1‐year postoperative mean outcomes 28 . For revision surgery of LLIF, a finite element study demonstrated that the lateral cage alone cannot provide adequate ROM restriction of the fusion segment and supplementary fixation is required to achieve favorable biomechanical stability, 30 which is similar to our results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further decompressing and fusing the affected segment was necessary for treating ASD 8 . According to previous studies, anterior, lateral and posterior approaches are all viable options 15,28 . However, there is no consensus on which approach is more appropriate for the treatment of ASD after primary TLIF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 8 According to previous studies, anterior, lateral and posterior approaches are all viable options. 15 , 28 However, there is no consensus on which approach is more appropriate for the treatment of ASD after primary TLIF. In this study, our results indicated that different surgical approaches can achieve similar biomechanical stability of the revision segment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis

Ke,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectiveAdjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well‐known complication after interbody fusion. Revision surgery is necessary for symptomatic ASD to further decompress and fix the affected segment. However, no optimal construct is accepted as a standard in treating ASD. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of different surgical approaches for the treatment of ASD after primary transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsA finite element model of the L1‐S1 was conducted based on computed tomography scan images. The primary surgery model was developed with a single‐level TLIF at L4‐L5 segment. The revision surgical models were developed with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), or TLIF at L3‐L4 segment. The range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), and the stress in cages were compared to investigate the biomechanical influences of different surgical approaches.ResultsThe results indicated that all the three surgical approaches can stabilize the spinal segment by reducing the ROM at revision level. The ROM and IDP at adjacent segments of revision model of TLIF was greater than those of other revision models. While revision surgery with ALIF and LLIF had similar effects on the ROM and IDP of adjacent segments. Compared among all the surgical models, cage stress in revision model of TLIF was the maximum in extension and axial rotation.ConclusionThe IDP at adjacent segments and stress in cages of revision model of TLIF was greater than those of ALIF and LLIF. This may be that direct extension of the surgical segment in the same direction results in stress concentration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis

Ke,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, contrary to previous research that considered advanced age as an independent risk factor for TLIF, Kern Singh et al suggested that age may not be a significant risk factor affecting the success of MIS-TLIF, as long as appropriate surgical inclusion criteria were followed ( 25 , 26 ). In addition, Kern Singh and his team compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing MIS-TLIF or ALIF for isthmic spondylolisthesis and revision, and found that ALIF only significantly increased operative time and intraoperative blood loss, whereas there was no significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes between the two procedures ( 27 , 28 ). As representative procedures for anterior and posterior lumbar fusion, ALIF and TLIF have been widely used for the treatment of lumbar disorders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: research status, trends, and future directions

Wang,

Zhang,

Yao

et al. 2023

EFORT Open Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for posterior lumbar fusion. This study aims to analyze the TLIF field by bibliometric method and comprehensively summarize the research status and trends. Methods All TLIF-related articles were retrieved from the Web of Science. The data were analyzed using R software and SPSS to calculate corresponding indicators. Visualizations were drawn using VOSviewer and Scimago Graphica, including country, institution, journal, author, and keywords. Results A total of 919 articles were included. The annual publication volume of TLIF-related articles presented an exponential growth. North America, Europe, and Asia were the main sources of articles, with the USA and China being the main contributors and the USA being the global research center for TLIF. The level of the national economy was an important factor affecting TLIF-related research. The highest number of contributions in this field was made by Kern Singh among authors and by Rush University among institutions. The European Spine Journal was the most influential journal. The research focus has gradually shifted from perfecting the TLIF technique toward emphasizing the patient level. The improvement of minimally invasive techniques and how to improve clinical outcomes as well as accelerate postoperative rehabilitation of patients may be the hot spot of future research. Conclusions With the advancement of medical technology and the popularization of minimally invasive concepts in recent years, TLIF and its derivative technologies have attracted increasing attention. Patient-centered minimally invasive surgery is a hot research topic in the field of TLIF currently and will continue to be so into the future

show abstract

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

Cited by 2 publications

References 43 publications

Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis

Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis

Bibliometric analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: research status, trends, and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About