• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.66 no.1
• /
• pp.33-43
• /
• 2023

Objective : To compare the outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in terms of global sagittal alignment. Methods : From January 2007 to December 2019, 141 adult patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders were enrolled. Regarding the approach, patients were divided into the ALIF (n=23), OLIF (n=60), and TLIF (n=58) groups. Outcomes, including local radiographic parameters and global sagittal alignment, were then compared between the treatment groups. Results : Regarding local radiographic parameters, ALIF and OLIF were superior to TLIF in terms of the change in the anterior disc height (7.6±4.5 mm vs. 6.9±3.2 mm vs. 4.7±2.9 mm, p<0.001), disc angle (-10.0°±6.3° vs. -9.2°±5.2° vs. -5.1°±5.1°, p<0.001), and fused segment lordosis (-14.5°±11.3° vs. -13.8°±7.5° vs. -7.4°±9.1°, p<0.001). However, regarding global sagittal alignment, postoperative lumbar lordosis (-42.5°±9.6° vs. -44.4°±11.6° vs. -40.6°±12.3°, p=0.210), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (7.9°±11.3° vs. 6.7°±11.6° vs. 11.5°±13.0°, p=0.089), and the sagittal vertical axis (24.3±28.5 mm vs. 24.5±34.0 mm vs. 25.2±36.6 mm, p=0.990) did not differ between the groups. Conclusion : Although the anterior approaches were superior in terms of local radiographic parameters, TLIF achieved adequate global sagittal alignment, comparable to the anterior approaches.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.56 no.6
• /
• pp.469-474
• /
• 2014

Objective : The use of direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) has gradually increased; however, no studies have directly compared DLIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We compared DLIF and TLIF on the basis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods : A retrospective review was performed on the medical records and radiographs of 98 and 81 patients who underwent TLIF and DLIF between January 2011 and December 2012. Clinical outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The preoperative and postoperative disc heights, segmental sagittal/coronal angles, and lumbar lordosis were measured on radiographs. Fusion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Results : DLIF was superior to TLIF regarding its ability to restore disc height, foraminal height, and coronal balance (p<0.001). As the extent of surgical level increased, DLIF displayed significant advantages over TLIF considering the operative time and EBL. However, fusion rates at 12 months post-operation were lower for DLIF (87.8%) than for TLIF (98.1%) (p=0.007). The changes of VAS and ODI between the TLIF and DLIF were not significantly different (p>0.05). Conclusion : Both DLIF and TLIF are less invasive and thus good surgical options for treating degenerative lumber diseases. DLIF has higher potential in increasing neural foramina and correcting coronal balance, and involves a shorter operative time and reduced EBL, in comparison with TLIF. However, DLIF displayed a lower fusion rate than TLIF, and caused complications related to the transpsoas approach.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.40 no.5
• /
• pp.346-350
• /
• 2006

Objective : The ability to induce segmental lordosis has been reported to be marginal with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion[TLIF]. Therefore, we analyzed the short-term radiological outcomes of TLIF using $8^{\circ}$ wedged cages for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Methods : Twenty-seven patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent single level TLIF with pedicle screw fixation[PSF] using $8^{\circ}$ wedged cages were retrospectively evaluated. Changes in disc height, degree of anterolisthesis, segmental lumbar lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis and L1 axis S1 distance were evaluated using standing lateral radiographs before surgery, at 6 weeks follow-up and at the final follow-up. Results : The mean age of the patients was 49.9 years [range, 38 to 64 years]. The affected levels were L4-5 in 17 cases and L5-S1 in 10. There were 18 cases of Grade I isthmic spondylolisthesis and 9 cases of Grade II. At a mean follow-up duration of 9.9 months [range, 6 to 18 months], the disc height [p< 0.001] was significantly increased, and the degree of anterolisthesis was significantly reduced [p< 0.001]. Regarding the sagittal balance, the segmental lumbar lordosis was significantly increased [p=0.01], but other parameters were not significantly changed after surgery. Conclusion : TLIF with PSF using $8^{\circ}$ wedged cages significantly increased the segmental lumbar lordosis.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.37 no.5
• /
• pp.340-344
• /
• 2005

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.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.128-131
• /
• 2013

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is commonly used procedure for spinal fusion. However, there are no reports describing anterior cage dislodgement after surgery. This report is a rare case of anterior dislodgement of fusion cage after TLIF for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis with lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV). A 51-year-old man underwent TLIF at L4-5 with posterior instrumentation for the treatment of grade 1 isthmic spondylolisthesis with LSTV. At 7 weeks postoperatively, imaging studies demonstrated that banana-shaped cage migrated anteriorly and anterolisthesis recurred at the index level with pseudoarthrosis. The cage was removed and exchanged by new cage through anterior approach, and screws were replaced with larger size ones and cement augmentation was added. At postoperative 2 days of revision surgery, computed tomography (CT) showed fracture on lateral pedicle and body wall of L5 vertebra. He underwent surgery again for paraspinal decompression at L4-5 and extension of instrumentation to S1 vertebra. His back and leg pains improved significantly after final revision surgery and symptom relief was maintained during follow-up period. At 6 months follow-up, CT images showed solid fusion at L4-5 level. Careful cage selection for TLIF must be done for treatment of spondylolisthesis accompanied with deformed LSTV, especially when reduction will be attempted. Banana-shaped cage should be positioned anteriorly, but anterior dislodgement of cage and reduction failure may occur in case of a highly unstable spine. Revision surgery for the treatment of an anteriorly dislodged cage may be effectively performed using an anterior approach.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.219-224
• /
• 2010

Objective : A minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLlF) has recently been introduced. However, MIS TLlF is a technically challenging procedure. The authors performed retrospective analysis about MIS TLlF using a single interbody cage. Methods : Twenty-eight consecutive patients were treated by MIS TLlF. Of these 28 patients, 20 patients were included in this retrospective study. Perioperative, clinical, and radiologic outcomes were assessed. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scores (VAS). Fusion rates and cross-sections of operated spinal canals were assessed by CT. Results : Twelve patients underwent MIS TLlF at one segment and 8 patients at two segments (L3/4: 4, L4/5: 17, L5/S1: 7). Operation time for a single segment was 131.7 min and for two segment was 201.4 min, and corresponding blood losses were 208.3 mL and 481.2 mL, respectively. ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved at 6 months postop (ODI from 30.32 to 15.54, VAS from 7.80 to 2.20, p = 0.001) Twenty-two segments (78.6%) achieved grade I fusion, 4 segments (14.3%) achieved grade II, 2 segments (7.1%) achieved grade III and 0 segments achieved grade IV at 12 months. Postoperatively at 12 months, spinal canal cross sectional areas at disc spaces significantly increased from 157.5 to $294.3\;mm^2$ (p = 0.012). Conclusion : MIS TLlF achieved good clinical outcomes and high fusion rates. Our findings show that MIS TLlF performed with a single Interbody cage and a tubular retractor system can be used as a standard MIS TLlF technique.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.63 no.6
• /
• pp.723-729
• /
• 2020

Objective : The use of oblique lateral interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level (OLIF51) is increasing, but no study has directly compared OLIF51 and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L5-S1 level. We evaluated the usefulness of OLIF51 by comparing clinical and radiologic outcomes with those of TLIF at the same L5-S1 level. Methods : We retrospectively reviewed and compared 74 patients who underwent OLIF51 (OLIF51 group) and 74 who underwent TLIF at the L5-S1 level (TLIF51 group). Clinical outcomes were assessed with the visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Mean disc height (MDH), foraminal height (FH), disc angle (DA), fusion rate, and subsidence rate were measured for radiologic outcomes. Results : The OLIF51 group used significantly higher, wider, and larger-angled cages than the TLIF51 group (p<0.001). The postoperative MDH and FH were significantly greater in the OLIF51 group than in the TLIF51 group (p<0.001). The postoperative DA was significantly larger in the OLIF51 group than in the TLIF51 group by more than 10º (p<0.001). The fusion rate was 81.1% and 87.8% at postoperative 6 months in the OLIF51 and TLIF51 groups, respectively, and the TLIF51 group showed a higher fusion rate (p<0.05). The subsidence rate was 16.2% and 25.3% in the OLIF51 and TLIF51 groups, respectively, and the OLIF51 group showed a lower subsidence rate (p<0.05). Conclusion : OLIF51 was more effective for the indirect decompression of foraminal stenosis, providing strong mechanical support with a larger cage, and making a greater lordotic angle with a high-angle cage than with TLIF.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.74-80
• /
• 2009

Objective : To evaluate clinical and radiological results of two different fusion techniques in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Methods : Between November 2003 and December 2004, 46 consecutive patients underwent instrumented mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (mini-TLIF) (group I) at Wooridul Spine Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Between February 2003 and October 2006, 32 consecutive patients underwent instrumented circumferential fusion (group II) at Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital, Suwon, Korea. The mean follow-up periods were 29.7 and 26.1 months, respectively. Results : Mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain decreased, respectively, from 6.98 and 6.33 to 2.3 and 2.2 in group I and from 7.38 and 6.00 to 1.7 and 1.0 in group II. Mean Oswestry disability index (ODI) improved from 51.85% to 14.4% in group I and from 60% to 9.1% in group II. In both groups, VAS and ODI scores significantly changed from pre- to postoperatively (p<0.001), but postoperative outcome between groups was statistically not significant. Radiologic evidence of fusion was noted in 95.7% and 100% of the patients in group I and II, respectively. In both groups, changes in disc height, segmental lordosis, degree of listhesis, and whole lumbar lordosis between the pre- and postoperative periods were significant except whole lumbar lordosis in both groups. Conclusion : Clinical and functional outcomes demonstrate no significant differences between groups in treating back and leg pain of adult patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. However, in terms of operative data (i.e. operation time and hospital stay), instrumented mini-TLIF demonstrated better results.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.62 no.4
• /
• pp.422-431
• /
• 2019

Objective : In an aging society, the number of patients with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is increasing and there is an emerging need for fusion surgery. However, few studies have compared transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for the treatment of patients with DS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes between TLIF and LLIF in DS. Methods : We enrolled patients with symptomatic DS at L4-5 who underwent TLIF with open pedicle screw fixation (TLIF group, n=41) or minimally invasive LLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (LLIF group, n=39) and were followed-up for more than one year. Clinical (visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index) and radiological outcomes (spondylolisthesis rate, segmental sagittal angle [SSA], mean disc height [MDH], intervertebral foramen height [FH], cage subsidence, and fusion rate) were assessed. And we assessed the changes in radiological parameters between the postoperative and the last follow-up periods. Results : Preoperative radiological parameters were not significantly different between the two groups. LLIF was significantly superior to TLIF in immediate postoperative radiological results, including reduction of spondylolisthesis rate (3.8% and 7.2%), increase in MDH (13.9 mm and 10.3 mm) and FH (21.9 mm and 19.4 mm), and correction of SSA ($18.9^{\circ}$ and $15.6^{\circ}$) (p<0.01), and the changes were more stable from the postoperative period to the last follow-up (p<0.01). Cage subsidence was observed significantly less in LLIF (n=6) than TLIF (n=21). Fusion rate was not different between the two groups. The clinical outcomes did not differ significantly at any time point between the two groups. Complications were not statistically significant. However, TLIF showed chronic mechanical problems with screw loosening in four patients and LLIF showed temporary symptoms associated with the surgical approach, such as psoas and ileus muscle symptoms in three and two cases, respectively. Conclusion : LLIF was more effective than TLIF for spondylolisthesis reduction, likely due to the higher profile cage and ligamentotactic effect. In addition, LLIF showed mechanical stability of the reduction level by using a cage with a larger footprint. Therefore, LLIF should be considered a surgical option before TLIF for patients with unstable DS.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.56 no.4
• /
• pp.315-322
• /
• 2014

Objective : Posterior accessed lumbar interbody fusion (PALIF) has a clear objective to restore disc height and spinal alignment but surgeons may occasionally face the converse situation and lose lumbar lordosis. We analyzed retrospective data for factors contributing to a postoperative flat back. Methods : A total of 105 patients who underwent PALIF for spondylolisthesis and stenosis were enrolled. The patients were divided according to surgical type [posterior lumbar inter body fusion (PLIF) vs. unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)], number of levels (single vs. multiple), and diagnosis (spondylolisthesis vs. stenosis). We measured perioperative index level lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, pelvic incidence, and disc height in standing lateral radiographs. The change and variance in each parameter and comparative group were analyzed with the paired and Student t-test (p<0.05), correlation coefficient, and regression analysis. Results : A significant perioperative reduction was observed in index-level lordosis following TLIF at the single level and in patients with spondylolisthesis (p=0.002, p=0.005). Pelvic tilt and sacral slope were significantly restored following PLIF multilevel surgery (p=0.009, p=0.003). Sacral slope variance was highly sensitive to perioperative variance of index level lordosis in high sacral sloped pelvis. Perioperative variance of index level lordosis was positively correlated with disc height variance ($R^2=0.286$, p=0.0005). Conclusion : Unilateral TLIF has the potential to cause postoperative flat back. PLIF is more reliable than unilateral TLIF to restore spinopelvic parameters following multilevel surgery and spondylolisthesis. A high sacral sloped pelvis is more vulnerable to PALIF in terms of a postoperative flat back.