» Articles » PMID: 31435555

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

Overview
Date 2019 Aug 23
PMID 31435555
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.

Chen M, Cui J, Liu Y, Cai Z, Yang C, Liu H J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):95.

PMID: 38287376 PMC: 10826027. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04531-3.


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

Ishihara Y, Morishita M, Miyaki J, Kanzaki K, Toyone T Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019; 3(1):71-78.

PMID: 31435555 PMC: 6690112. DOI: 10.22603/ssrr.2018-0022.

References
1.
Yamato Y, Matsuyama Y, Hasegawa K, Aota Y, Akazawa T, Iida T . A Japanese nationwide multicenter survey on perioperative complications of corrective fusion for elderly patients with adult spinal deformity. J Orthop Sci. 2016; 22(2):237-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2016.11.006. View

2.
Lowe T, Hashim S, Wilson L, OBrien M, Smith D, Diekmann M . A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(21):2389-94. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143623.18098.e5. View

3.
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

4.
Han S, Hyun S, Jahng T, Kim K . A Comparative Radiographic Analysis of Fusion Rate between L4-5 and L5-S1 in a Single Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Korean J Spine. 2015; 12(2):60-7. PMC: 4513170. DOI: 10.14245/kjs.2015.12.2.60. View

5.
Lian X, Hou T, Xu J, Zeng B, Zhao J, Liu X . Single segment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: reduction or fusion in situ. Eur Spine J. 2013; 23(1):172-9. PMC: 3897824. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2858-6. View