Article
Lumbar interbody fusion: state-of-the-art technical advances. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004.
Department of Neurological Surgery, Emory University, Crawford Long Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, USA.
Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (impact factor:
1.53).
08/2004;
1(1):24-30.
DOI:10.3171/spi.2004.1.1.0024
pp.24-30
Source: PubMed
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (7)
-
Article: Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The authors review and compare posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A review of the literature is performed wherein the history, indications for surgery, surgical procedures with their respective biomechanical advantages, potential complications, and grafting substances are presented. Along with the technical advancements and improvements in grafting substances, the indications and use of PLIF and TLIF have increased. The rate of arthrodesis has been shown to increase given placement of bone graft along the weight-bearing axis. The fusion rate across the disc space is further enhanced with the placement of posterior pedicle screw-rod constructs and the application of an osteoinductive material. The chief advantages of the TLIF procedure compared with the PLIF procedure included a decrease in potential neurological injury, improvement in lordotic alignment given graft placement within the anterior column, and preservation of posterior column integrity through minimizing lamina, facet, and pars dissection.Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 07/2009; 2(2):118-26. -
Article: Mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To demonstrate the surgical technique and advantages of the mini-open transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with transpedicular screw fixation. Clinical and radiographic results were assessed to determine the clinical outcomes in twelve consecutive patients selected for minimally invasive access (mini-open technique) for TLIF in Prasat Neurological Institute. A retrospective analysis was performed on 12 patients (age range, 38-74 yr; mean, 54. 8 yr) who underwent mini-open transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with transpedicular screw fixation between September 2006 and June 2008. The titanium pedicle screws were introduced bilaterally through the 3.5 cm length, skin incisions with Spine Classics MLD- system retractor, autologous bone graft were inserted to perform TLIF in all patients. Eight patients were augmented anterior column support with titanium interbody cage, unilateral cage insertion in four patients and the others were inserted bilaterally interbody cages. Six patients presented with low back pain and associated radiculopathy, and six presented with low back pain only. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed at L3-L4 in two patients, L4-L5 in four patients, L5-S1 in five patients, and two levels fusion in one patient. All patients were able to ambulate after spinal fusion. The patients were able to walk within 1.4 days (range 1-2 days). The hospital stay averaged 4.4 days (range 3-7 days). Periodic follow-up took place 1 to 21 months after surgery (mean, 7.4 months). The radiological fusion was archived in all nine patients who were operated on more than two months age. The other three patients who had been follow-up less than two months were probably fusion on the 1-month followed-up radiological examination. The use of mini-open technique for pedicle screw instrumentation with spinal fusion procedure provides excellent clinical results and may be an operation of choice for lumbar spinal fusion in selected patients.Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet 10/2008; 91(9):1368-76. -
Article: Nucleus replacement technologies.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nucleus replacement offers a less invasive alternative to traditional fusion or total disc replacement techniques in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The authors discuss the classification of nucleus replacement devices as well as their potential indications. The authors review the history and evolution of nucleus replacement devices emphasizing several that are actively in US Investigational Device Exemption pilot feasibility trials. Nucleus replacement devices can be functionally categorized as elastomeric and mechanical. A classification scheme is discussed. Nucleus replacement remains investigational, but early clinical results have been encouraging. Further clinical investigation with well-designed prospective, randomized pivotal trials is needed to determine the efficacy of nucleus replacement in the treatment of lumbar DDD, as well as its ideal indications.Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 03/2008; 8(2):115-20. · 1.53 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
advantages
anterior LIF
circumferential lumbar interbody fusion
decades
disadvantages
interbody fusion
interbody spacer materials
LIF
minimally invasive access
posterior LIF
supplemental posterior fixation
transforaminal LIF
