Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지

Comparison between Posterior and Transforaminal Approaches for Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Park, Jae-Sung (Department of Neurosurgery, Chungang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Young-Baeg (Department of Neurosurgery, Chungang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hong, Hyun-Jong (Department of Neurosurgery, Chungang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hwang, Sung-Nam (Department of Neurosurgery, Chungang University College of Medicine)
  • Published : 2005.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF), the current leading method of pedicle screw fixation combined with interbody fusion via posterior route, sometimes requires too much destruction of the facet joint than expected especially for the patient with a narrow spine. On the other hand, tranforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) technique provides potential advantages over PLIF and can be chosen as a better surgical alternative to more traditional fusion methods in certain surgical conditions. Methods: From October 1999, 99 PLIF and 29 TLIF procedures were done for the patients with spinal stenosis and instability. Radiological data including the interpedicular distance and the size of the pedicles as well as the clinical parameters were collected retrospectively. The degree of resection of the inferior articular process was compared with the interpedicular distance in each patient who received PLIF. Results: No significant differences were found between PLIF and TLIF regarding the operation time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, or short term postoperative clinical result. There were no complication with TLIF, but PLIF resulted in 9(9.1%) complications. During PLIF procedure, all patients(n=24) except one with the interpedicular distance shorter than 27mm required near complete or complete resection of the inferior articular processes, whereas only 6(31.5%) of 19 patients with the interpedicular distances longer than 30mm required the similar extent of resection. Conclusion: TLIF is better than PLIF in terms of the complication rate. The patient who had narrow interpedicular distance(<27mm) might be better candidate for TLIF.

Keywords

References

  1. Borden SD, Sumner DR : Biologic factors affecting spinal fusion and bone regeneration. Spine 20 : 102-112, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199512151-00006
  2. Cloward RB : The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by ventral fusion : Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10 : 154, 1953 https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
  3. Cloward RB : Spondylolisthesis : treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion : Review of 100 cases. Clin Orthop 154 : 74-82, 1981
  4. Collins JS : Total disc replacement : A modified lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 193 : 64-67, 1985
  5. Hambley MF, Willner S, Johnson K : Postoperative instability after decompression. Spine 14 : 534-538, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198905000-00013
  6. Harm J, Jeszensky D : The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6 : 88-99, 1998
  7. Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : The effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 29 : 65-70, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000113034.74567.86
  8. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG : Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26 : 567-571, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023
  9. Hutter CG : Spinal stenosis and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 193 : 103-114, 1985
  10. Keim HA : Indications for spine fusions and techniques. Clin Neurosurg 25 : 266-275, 1978 https://doi.org/10.1093/neurosurgery/25.CN_suppl_1.266
  11. Kim YB, Park SW, Kwon JT, Min BK, Hwang SN, Suk JS, et al : Unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion with bone dowels. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 25 : 1202-1208, 1996
  12. Lin PM : A technical modification of Cloward's posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 1 : 118-124, 1977 https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-197709000-00006
  13. Lin PM : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique : Complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop 193 : 90-102, 1985
  14. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O'Brien MF : Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) : Indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15 : 31-38, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200202000-00005
  15. Onesti ST, Ashkenazi E : The Ray Threaded Fusion Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 42 : 200-204, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199801000-00046
  16. Ray CD : Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 22 : 667-679, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199703150-00019
  17. Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48 : 569-574, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-200103000-00022
  18. Shirado O, Zdeblick TA, McAfee PC, Warden KE : Biomechanical evaluation of methods of posterior stabilization of the spine and posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis for lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 73 : 518-526, 1991 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199173040-00007
  19. Simmons JW : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. In : Frymoyer JW, Ducher TB, Hadler NM eds. The Adult Spine : Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia : Lippincott-Raven : 2225-2252, 1997
  20. Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG : Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22 : 210-219, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199701150-00016