» Articles » PMID: 29430325

[Minimally Invasive Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion]

Overview
Journal Surg Neurol Int
Specialty Neurology
Date 2018 Feb 13
PMID 29430325
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: The objective of the present study was to determine the indications, surgical technique, results, and complications of minimally invasive extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF).

Introduction: ELIF is characterized as removal of the superior articular process (SAP) to access the intra-canalicular root and disc through Kambin's triangle.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of 40 patients operated upon between 2013 and 2015. Patients with low back pain or root pain due to degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis grade 1 and 2, recurrent disc herniation, and recess-foraminal stenosis were included. A visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry index, the Weiner scale and the modified MacNab criteria were used to assess pain, clinical and functional results and patient satisfaction one year after surgery. Complications were documented and rated according to their severity, in four degrees.

Results: We operated on 25 women and 15 men of average age 57 years. Of the forty, 47.5% were treated for spondylolisthesis, 25% by recess foraminal stenosis. In total, 54 interbody cages and 188 percutaneous pedicle screws were placed; and the mean duration of surgery was 245 (±25.4) minutes. The mean hospitalization time was 3.5 (±0.49) days. We observed nine Grade 1 and one Grade 2 complication. The mean preoperative ODI score was 51.9 ± 4.96, which improved to 12.2 ± 3.19 at one year ( < 0.0001). The mean VAS low back pain rating improved from 8.81 ± 0.62 to 2.12 ± 0.89 ( < 0.0001). By one year post-operatively, 77.5% of the patients had fusion (Bridwell grade 1 or 2).

Conclusions: ELIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. Satisfactory clinical outcomes, comparable to traditional techniques, can be achieved with facet resection limited to the superior articular process.

Citing Articles

[Percutaneous Lumbar Endoscopic Discectomy: Presentation of 60 Cases Intervened in Argentina with Awake Patients].

Frucella G, Maldonado D Surg Neurol Int. 2019; 10(Suppl 1):S37-S45.

PMID: 31772818 PMC: 6863058. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_325_2019.


[Minimally invasive resection of spinal synovial cysts: Technical note].

Landriel F, Hem S, Rasmussen J, Vecchi E, Yampolsky C Surg Neurol Int. 2019; 10(Suppl 1):S12-S20.

PMID: 31123636 PMC: 6416767. DOI: 10.4103/sni.sni_416_18.

References
1.
Lowe T, Tahernia A . Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; (394):64-72. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200201000-00008. View

2.
Kim M, Chung H, Kim D, Kim S, Jeon S . The clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody single level fusion. Asian Spine J. 2011; 5(2):111-6. PMC: 3095800. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2011.5.2.111. View

3.
Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A . Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(11):1131-41. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002. View

4.
Kwon B, Hilibrand A, Malloy K, Savas P, Silva M, Albert T . A critical analysis of the literature regarding surgical approach and outcome for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18 Suppl:S30-40. DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000133064.20466.88. View

5.
Humphreys S, Hodges S, Patwardhan A, Eck J, Murphy R, Covington L . Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(5):567-71. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023. View