Nagendra Kuna¹, Anil Kumar Chintada²* and Ashish Jaiswal¹

¹Department of Orthopedics, Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur, C.G, India
²Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, Q1 Hospitals, Arilova Health City, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India

*Corresponding Author: Anil Kumar Chintada, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, Q1 Hospitals, Arilova Health City, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Received: August 30, 2023; Published: November 27, 2023

Abstract

Aim: To assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of the Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique in patients with degenerative and lytic spondylolisthesis.

Methods: It is a prospective analytical study done between June 2017 and December 2018. Inclusion criteria included degenerative and lytic segmental instability, degenerative disc disease, previous laminectomy or discectomy and patients not responding to non-operative management for a minimum of 3 months. 56 patients were included, who were evaluated clinically and radiologically before surgery and after surgery till 12 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale for low back pain and lower limb radicular pain, functional outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index. Radiological fusion was evaluated at individual levels that were obtained postoperatively every 3 months to assess fusion till 12 months.

Results: There were 17 males and 39 females in our study with a mean age of 52.2 years. Degenerative lesions were found in 40 patients, Lytic lesions were found in 14 patients and 2 were previously operated patients. The majority of the lesions were at the level of L4-L5, followed by L5-S1 level, we also had 3 cases at the L3-L4 level, while 2 patients had lesions at two levels, L3-L4 and L4-L5. Most of the patients had lesions at one vertebral level. Only two patients had involvement of two vertebral levels. The mean duration of surgery was 164 ± 22.86 min and the mean blood loss was 450.54 ± 125.94ml. The minimum stay was 2 days while the maximum stay was 12 days. The VAS for Back and leg pain showed a gradual improvement in the mean pain scores of 91.07% and 92.86% respectively. 89.29% had improvement in the ODI scores. We observed a radiological fusion rate of 89.29% in the follow-up examination. Our study observed complications in four patients which were managed accordingly.

Conclusion: TLIF is a safe and effective method to achieve circumferential fusion though it is technically challenging and the surgeon needs to be proficient in the technique to avoid complications, our clinical and radiological analysis confirmed that patients did benefit significantly in terms of pain, overall health and disability status.

Keywords: Clinical; Radiological; Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody; Degenerative; Lytic Spondylolisthesis

References

1. Saal JA. “Natural history and nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc herniation”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)24 (1996): 2S-9S.
2. Deyo RA and Tsui-Wu YJ. “Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)3 (1987): 264-268.
3. Côté P., et al. “The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)9 (2000): 1109-1117.
4. Zdeblick TA. “A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8 (1993): 983-991.
5. Roy-Camille R., et al. “Ostéosynthèse du rachis dorsal, lombaire et lombo-sacré par plaques métalliques vissées dans les pédicules vertébraux et les apophyses articulaires [Osteosynthesis of dorsal, lumbar, and lumbosacral spine with metallic plates screwed into vertebral pedicles and articular apophyses]”. La Presse Médicale (1893)32 (1970): 1447-1448.
6. La Rosa G., et al. “Pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: does posterior lumbar interbody fusion improve outcome over posterolateral fusion?” Journal of Neurosurgery 2 (2013): 143-150.
7. Lauerman W and Russo M. “Thoracolumbar spine disorders in the adult”. DeLee and Drez's Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. 4^th Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders (2015).
8. Kornblum MB., et al. “Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis”. Spine (PhilaPa1976)7 (2004): 726-734.
9. Davne SH and Myers DL. “Complications of lumbar spinal fusion with transpedicular instrumentation”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 6 (1992): S184-S189.
10. Deguchi M., et al. “Biomechanical comparison of spondylolysis fixation techniques”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)4 (1999): 328-333.
11. Gillet P and Petit M. “Direct repair of spondylolysis without spondylolisthesis, using a rod-screw construct and bone grafting of the pars defect”. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)12 (1999): 1252-1256.
12. Potter BK., et al. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients”. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 4 (2005): 337-346.
13. Jacobsohn MJ and Dunn RN. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): Assessment of clinical and radiological outcome”. SA Orthopaedic Journal1 (2009): 26-31.
14. Salehi SA., et al. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients”. Neurosurgery2 (2004): 368-374.
15. El-Masry MA., et al. “Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using a single cage for treatment of low-grade lytic spondylolisthesis”. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 5 (2008): 667-671.
16. Rosenberg WS and Mummaneni PV. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results”. Neurosurgery3 (2001): 569-575.
17. Raship Khan., et al. “Functional outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lytic and degenerative spondylolisthesis”. International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences 3 (2018): 165-168.
18. Potter BK., et al. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients”. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques 4 (2005): 337-346.
19. Jacobsohn MJ and Dunn RN. “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): Assessment of clinical and radiological outcome”. SA Orthopaedic Journal1 (2009): 26-31.
20. Balasubramanian VA., et al. “Outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in spondylolisthesis-A clinico-radiological correlation”. Journal of Orthopaedics 2 (2018): 359-362.
21. Ali Y., et al. “Short-term outcome of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lytic and degenerative spondylolisthesis”. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong Kong)3 (2012): 371-374.
22. El-Soufy., et al. “Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Low- Grade Spondylolisthesis”. Journal of Spine and Neurosurgery (2014):
23. Xu H., et al. “Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality”. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 5 (2009): 496-499.
24. Suresh Padya., et al. “Transforaminal Lumbar Inter body Fusion in Low Grade Combined Lytic and Degenerative Spondylolidthesis: Functional Outcome of 21 Cases”. Journal of Evidence based Medicine and Healthcare42 (2015): 7445-7450.
25. Aoki Y., et al. “A prospective randomized controlled study comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative spondylolisthesis: unilateral pedicle screw and 1 cage versus bilateral pedicle screws and 2 cages”. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2 (2012): 153-159.

Citation

Citation: Anil Kumar Chintada., et al. “Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative and Lytic Spondylolisthesis".Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 6.12 (2023): 78-85.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Nagendra Kuna., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.