Article

Comparison of SpineJet XL and Conventional Instrumentation for Disk Space Preparation in Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Department of Neurosurgery, St. Paul's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (Impact Factor: 0.6). 05/2010; 47(5):370-6. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2010.47.5.370
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is widely used because of its benefits, it does have some technical limitations. Removal of disk material and endplate cartilage is difficult, but essential, for proper fusion in unilateral surgery, leading to debate regarding the surgery's limitations in removing the disk material on the contralateral side. Therefore, authors have conducted a randomized, comparative cadaver study in order to evaluate the efficiency of the surgery when using conventional instruments in the preparation of the disk space and when using the recently developed high-pressure water jet system, SpineJet XL.
Two spine surgeons performed diskectomies and disk preparations for TLIF in 20 lumbar disks. All cadaver/surgeon/level allocations for preparation using the SpineJet XL (HydroCision Inc., Boston, MA, USA) or conventional tools were randomized. All assessments were performed by an independent spine surgeon who was unaware of the randomizations. The authors measured the areas (cm(2)) and calculated the proportion (%) of the disk surfaces. The duration of the disk preparation and number of instrument insertions and withdrawals required to complete the disk preparation were recorded for all procedures.
The proportion of the area of removed disk tissue versus that of potentially removable disk tissue, the proportion of the area of removed endplate cartilage, and the area of removed disk tissue in the contralateral posterior portion showed 74.5 +/- 17.2%, 18.5 +/- 12.03%, and 67.55 +/- 16.10%, respectively, when the SpineJet XL was used, and 52.6 +/- 16.9%, 22.8 +/- 17.84%, and 51.64 +/- 19.63%, respectively, when conventional instrumentations were used. The results also showed that when the SpineJet XL was used, the proportion of the area of removed disk tissue versus that of potentially removable disk tissue and the area of removed disk tissue in the contralateral posterior portion were statistically significantly high (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, respectively). Also, compared to conventional instrumentations, the duration required to complete disk space preparation was shorter, and the frequency of instrument use and the numbers of insertions/withdrawals were lower when the SpineJet XL was used.
The present study demonstrates that hydrosurgery using the SpineJet XL unit allows for the preparation of a greater portion of disk space and that it is less traumatic and allows for more precise endplate preparation without damage to the bony endplate. Furthermore, the SpineJet XL appears to provide tangible benefits in terms of disk space preparation for graft placement, particularly when using the unilateral TLIF approach.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
47 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A study of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and the posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques was performed. To describe the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique, and to compare operative data, including blood loss and operative time, with data from posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique. The evolution of posterior lumbar fusion combined with anterior interbody fusion has resulted in increased fusion rates as well as improved reductions and stability. The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique pioneered by Harms and Jeszensky offers potential advantages and provides a surgical alternative to more traditional methods. In 13 consecutive months, two spinal surgeons performed 40 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and 34 posterior lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Data regarding blood loss, operative times, and length of hospital stay were recorded. These data were analyzed using analysis of variance to show any significant differences between the two techniques. To determine whether differences in measured variables were dependent on patient gender or number of levels fused, epsilon(chi2) analysis was used. No significant differences were found between transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusions in terms of blood loss, operative time, or duration of hospital stay when a single-level fusion was performed. Significantly less blood loss occurred when a two-level fusion was performed using the transforaminal approach instead of the posterior approach (P < 0.01). Differences in measured variables for the two procedures were independent of patient age, gender, and the number of levels fused. There were no complications with the transforaminal approach, but the posterior approach resulted in multiple complications. In this comparison of patients receiving transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion, no complications occurred with the transforaminal approach, whereas multiple complications were associated with the posterior approach. Similar operative times, blood loss, and duration of hospital stay were obtained in single-level fusions, but significantly less blood loss occurred with the transforaminal lumbar interbody approach in two-level fusions. The transforaminal procedure preserves the interspinous ligaments of the lumbar spine and preserves the contralateral laminar surface as an additional surface for bone graft. It may be performed at all lumbar levels because it avoids significant retraction of the dura and conus medullaris.
    Spine 04/2001; 26(5):567-71. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An observational radiographic study examining lumbar sagittal contour of patients undergoing posterior interbody arthrodesis. To compare operative alterations of lumbar sagittal contour after posterior interbody fusion using threaded interbody devices alone versus vertical cages combined with posterior compression instrumentation. Technique-related alterations of lumbar sagittal contour during interbody arthrodesis have received little attention in the spinal literature. Standing lumbar radiographs were measured for preoperative and postoperative segmental lordosis at levels undergoing posterior interbody arthrodesis using either stand-alone side-by-side threaded devices or vertical cages combined with posterior transpedicular compression instrumentation. Sagittal plane segmental correction (or loss of correction) was calculated and statistically compared. The radiographs of 30 patients (34 spinal segments) undergoing lumbar or lumbosacral arthrodesis were compared. Seventeen patients (18 segments) had undergone interbody fusion using threaded cages,whereas 13 patients (16 segments) underwent fusion using vertically oriented mesh cages combined with posterior compression instrumentation. Preoperative segmental lordosis averaged 8 degrees for both groups. For patients undergoing fusion with threaded cages, there was a mean lordotic loss of 3 degrees/segment. For patients undergoing fusion with vertically oriented mesh cages combined with posterior compression instrumentation,there was a mean lordotic gain of 5 degrees/segment. This difference in segmental sagittal plane contour was highly significant (P = 0.00). Threaded fusion devices placed under interbody distraction with the endplates parallel fail to preserve or reestablish segmental lordosis. Vertical cages, however, when combined with posterior compression instrumentation, not only maintain segmental lordosis, but also can correct sagittal plane deformity.
    Spine 04/2001; 26(5):534-7. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The greatest advantage of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is that it dynamically decompresses neural structures by holding the vertebral bodies apart and fusing them into a single motion segment. After ten years of experience with PLIF, the authors recommend a technique that enhances a high rate of fusion by utilizing the following four biomechanical principles: (1) preservation of the integrity of the posterior portion of the motion segment; (2) partial preservation of the integrity of the cortical end-plates; (3) attempted maximal removal of the disc material; and (4) one-piece grafts, as applied to PLIF, a "unigraft" concept, to fill all the disc space compactly with autogenous bone grafts. In a series of 465 cases of PLIF with a follow-up period of at least one year, the authors achieved a fusion rate of 88% and satisfactory clinical results in 82%. The fusion rate and clinical result are further investigated in six different clinical entities: lateral herniated disc, midline disc, degenerative disc, recurrent disc, spinal stenosis, and unstable spine. PLIF, as currently conceived, is an important technique in the surgical management of lumbar disc diseases.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 12/1983; · 2.79 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
0 Downloads
Available from