Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kunder, S. L. de; Kuijk, Sander M. J. van; Rijkers, Kim; Caelers, Inge; Hemert, Wouter L.W. van; Bie, Rob A. de; Santbrink, Henk van

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018

Cited by 211 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…reported the use of the transforaminal endoscopic procedure for disc herniation combined with central lumbar stenosis, and had satisfactory results. For open decompression with and without interbody fusion surgery, a meta‐analysis demonstrated a 79.8%–88.6% satisfaction rate for post‐posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery. These results were comparable to the data obtained in this study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Foraminoplasty for Treating Central Lumbar Stenosis

Bao

Zhou

Peng

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a medical condition characterized by the narrowing of the spinal canal as a consequence of bone and soft tissue degeneration, including disc herniation, facet and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy, and osteophyte formation. The percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) technique is one of the emerging surgical alternatives for treating central lumbar stenosis. The present study aims to describe the present techniques of PTED and foraminoplasty for central lumbar stenosis, and discuss the feasibility and advantages of this technique.Conclusion: PTED and foraminoplasty technique showed promising outcomes in the treatment of central lumbar stenosis in a 1-year follow-up period. It suggested that PTED and foraminoplasty might be applied as a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with lumbar stenosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Foraminoplasty for Treating Central Lumbar Stenosis

Bao

Zhou

Peng

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intraoperative and postoperative complications were shown to be lower in TLIF compared to PLIF procedures. 42,43 So far, only 1 randomized control study reported radiological and clinical outcomes using Ti-coated and uncoated PEEK cages for TLIF but did not demonstrate a superiority for Ti-coated PEEK. Høy et al, 44 noted several problems in their study could affect fusion, such as endplate preparation, severity of osteopenia, os- Standard error teoporosis, and fixation stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Lumbar fusion with implantation of interbody cage is a common procedure for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. This study aims to compare the fusion and subsidence rates of titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and investigate the effect of clinical and radiological outcomes following fusion on patient-reported outcomes. Methods: A systematic search strategy of 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted using different MeSH (medical subject headings) terms until January 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed and random-effect models based upon the heterogeneity (I 2 ) to estimate the association between interbody cages and the measured outcomes. Results: A total of 1,094 patients from 11 studies were reviewed. The final analysis included 421 patients (38.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a Ti and/or a Ti-coated interbody cage and 673 patient (61.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a PEEK cage. Overall, PEEK interbody devices were associated with a significantly lower fusion rate compared with Ti interbody devices (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93; p = 0.02). There was no difference in subsidence rates between Ti and PEEK groups (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54-1.52; p = 0.71). Also, there were no statistically significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS)-low back pain (p = 0.14) and Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (p = 0.86) between the 2 groups. However, the PEEK group had lower odds of leg pain after surgery compared to the Ti group (OR [VAS-leg], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.28-0.94; p = 0.003). Conclusion: Ti and Ti-coated PEEK cages used for posterior lumbar interbody fusion are associated with similar rates of subsidence, but a higher rate of fusion compared to PEEK interbody cages. Randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the effect of cage materials and potential factors that could influence the outcomes of interbody lumbar fusion.

show abstract

“…10,11 Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been shown to be an effective surgical procedure for spondylolisthesis, 4,9,13,22 and there is growing interest in whether minimally invasive surgery for TLIF (MIS TLIF) can provide the same benefits. 1,3,16,35 Although MIS TLIF is associated with a significant learning curve, increased use of fluoroscopy, and risk of nerve injury, 2,6,[26][27][28][44][45][46][47] its benefits over open TLIF include decreased operating time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, decreased hospital stay, improved cost-effectiveness, faster return to work, and decreased pain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis

Massie¹,

Zakaria²,

Schultz

et al. 2018

Neurosurgical Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEThe inability to significantly improve sagittal parameters has been a limitation of minimally invasive surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). Traditional cages have a limited capacity to restore lordosis. This study evaluates the use of a crescent-shaped articulating expandable cage (Altera) for MIS TLIF.METHODSThis is a retrospective review of 1- and 2-level MIS TLIF. Radiographic outcomes included differences in segmental and lumbar lordosis, disc height, evidence of fusion, and any endplate violations. Clinical outcomes included the numeric rating scale for leg and back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for low-back pain.RESULTSThirty-nine patients underwent single-level MIS TLIF, and 5 underwent 2-level MIS TLIF. The mean age was 63.1 years, with 64% women. On average, spondylolisthesis was corrected by 4.3 mm (preoperative = 6.69 mm, postoperative = 2.39 mm, p < 0.001), the segmental angle was improved by 4.94° (preoperative = 5.63°, postoperative = 10.58°, p < 0.001), and segmental height increased by 3.1 mm (preoperative = 5.09 mm, postoperative = 8.19 mm, p < 0.001). At 90 days after surgery the authors observed the following: a smaller postoperative sagittal vertical axis was associated with larger changes in back pain at 90 days (r = −0.558, p = 0.013); a larger decrease in spondylolisthesis was associated with greater improvements in ODI and back pain scores (r = −0.425, p = 0.043, and r = −0.43, p = 0.031, respectively); and a larger decrease in pelvic tilt (PT) was associated with greater improvements in back pain (r = −0.548, p = 0.043). For the 1-year PROs, the relationship between the change in PT and changes in ODI and numeric rating scale back pain were significant (r = 0.612, p = 0.009, and r = −0.803, p = 0.001, respectively) with larger decreases in PT associated with larger improvements in ODI and back pain. Overall for this study there was a 96% fusion rate.Fourteen patients were noted to have endplate violation on intraoperative fluoroscopy during placement of the cage. Only 3 of these had progression of their subsidence, with an overall subsidence rate of 6% (3 of 49) visible on postoperative CT.CONCLUSIONSThe use of this expandable, articulating, lordotic, or hyperlordotic interbody cage for MIS TLIF provides a significant restoration of segmental height and segmental lordosis, with associated improvements in sagittal balance parameters. Patients treated with this technique had acceptable levels of fusion and significant reductions in pain and disability.

show abstract

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 211 publications

References 34 publications

Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Foraminoplasty for Treating Central Lumbar Stenosis

Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Foraminoplasty for Treating Central Lumbar Stenosis

Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About