Journal Article10.1097/BSD.0B013E318169026F
Minimally Invasive Interbody Fusion for Revision Lumbar Surgery: Technical Feasibility and Safety
103
TL;DR: Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion by revision surgery is technically feasible and is not associated with more blood loss or neurologic morbidity, however, revision surgery has a higher minor perioperative complication rate, particularly of incidental durotomy.
read more
Abstract: Study design Retrospective chart review of one surgeon's practice. Objective We evaluate the perioperative morbidity of 43 patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion to differentiate risks between primary and revision surgery candidates. Summary of background data Minimally invasive approaches to the lumbar spine have rapidly evolved and the technical feasibility and safety of minimally invasive interbody fusion is well established. Revision surgery is technically more challenging and may cause avoidance of such approaches because of altered anatomy and absent bony landmarks. Description of minimally invasive surgery approaches among revision patients and the feasibility of such techniques demands clarification. Methods Forty-three consecutive minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and posterior lumbar interbody fusions (PLIFs) were reviewed. Estimated blood loss, operative time, and complication rates were compared between primary and revision patients using Student t tests. Results Seventeen revision surgery cases (40%) were compared with 26 primary surgeries (60%) to elucidate differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications. Demographic variables were similar in both groups. Estimated blood loss trended higher among the PLIF group and among revision cases, though no statistical significance was observed. A higher rate of complications, most notably incidental durotomy, was observed among revision cases in both PLIF and TLIF patients. One patient undergoing primary surgery had an intraoperative pedicle fracture, and 1 patient undergoing revision surgery had an asymptomatic screw malposition. No patients had a major complication, nerve injury, infection, or conversion to an open procedure. Conclusions Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion by revision surgery is technically feasible and is not associated with more blood loss or neurologic morbidity. However, revision surgery has a higher minor perioperative complication rate, particularly of incidental durotomy. These outcomes demand significant experience before attempting minimally invasive revision surgery in the lumbar spine.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery
Ki Woong Kim,Ji Won Han,Hyung Joon Cho,Chong Bum Chang,Joon Hyuk Park,Jung Jae Lee,Seok Bum Lee,Sang Cheol Seong,Tae Kyun Kim +8 more
TL;DR: Minimally invasive posterior lumbar surgery is performed with table-mounted tubular retractors that focus the surgical dissection to a narrow corridor directly over the surgical target site, avoiding injury to the musculotendinous complex and the neurovascular bundle.
260
Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review
TL;DR: A quantitative systematic review of clinical comparative effectiveness research examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar pathology suggests equipoise in patient-reported clinical outcomes.
Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis.
Scott L. Parker,Owoicho Adogwa,Timothy F. Witham,Oran S. Aaronson,Joseph S. Cheng,Matthew J. McGirt +5 more
TL;DR: MIS vs. open TLIF is associated with a decreased reported incidence of SSI in the literature and may be a valuable tool in reducing hospital costs associated with spine care.
192
Technique, challenges and indications for percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss guidelines for safe implantation of percutaneous pedicle screws using an image intensifier technique and discuss potential indications for minimally invasive fusion techniques for complex spinal surgery and support these with descriptions of illustrative patients.
188
Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies
TL;DR: In this study MIS provided similar efficacy to the conventional open technique, and proved to be superior with regard to patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, time to mobilise and complication rates.
140
References
The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care.
TL;DR: Ralph B. Cloward is an exceptionally skilled and innovative technical neurosurgeon and rightfully deserves the title “Michelangelo of neurosurgery.”
676
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results.
TL;DR: Results of this study indicate that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is feasible and offers several potential advantages over traditional open techniques.
606
[A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]
J. Harms,H. Rolinger +1 more
TL;DR: On account of 41 cases of spondylolisthesis a one-stage operation for repositioning and stabilisation using Harrington's instrumentation with anterior intercorporal spine fusion is recommended.
506
Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion.
TL;DR: 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, but significantly less blood loss occurred in two-level fusions.
485
Dural Tears Secondary to Operations on the Lumbar Spine. Management and Results After a Two-Year-Minimum Follow-up of Eighty-eight Patients*
TL;DR: A dural tear that occurs during an operation on the lumbar spine can be treated successfully with primary repair followed by bed rest and does not appear to have any long-term deleterious effects or to increase the risk of postoperative infection, neural damage, or arachnoiditis.
405