Clinical outcomes of transarticular and lateral vertebral canal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis : a retrospective study of 124 cases

To explore the effectiveness and safety of transarticular and lateral vertebral canal lumbar interbody fusion (TLc-LIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical data from 124 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent transarticular and lateral vertebral canal lumbar interbody fusion operations from January 2011 to March 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The operation duration, blood loss, and postoperative complications were recorded. The visual analog scale, Japanese Orthopedic Association score and Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy. All patients were followed-up through outpatient review or telephone calls, and the mean follow-up interval was 36.2 months. The mean operative duration was 146.21±34.20 min. The mean blood loss was 496.85±114.74 ml. According to the Macnab scoring criteria, the clinical outcome was excellent in 69 patients (55.65%), good in 47 patients (37.90%), acceptable in 8 patients (6.45%), and worse in none of the patients. The rate of excellent or good patient outcomes was 93.55%. The score on the visual analog scale decreased significantly between pre-operative and post-operative measurements, and the Japanese orthopedic association score increased between the pre-operative stage and follow-up. The differences between preand postoperative scores for both scales were statistically significant (P<0.05). TLc-LIF has increased potential with broadly developing prospects; thus, it would be beneficial for these procedures to be applied on a more widespread basis due to their advantages in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, including minimal trauma, decreased bleeding, and high satisfaction.

[1]  M. Iwasaki,et al.  Patient-Based Surgical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Patient Satisfaction Analysis , 2016, Spine.

[2]  Yu-hua Huang,et al.  Significant Blood Loss in Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Spine. , 2015, World neurosurgery.

[3]  C. Woernle,et al.  Clinical Outcome in Lumbar Decompression Surgery for Spinal Canal Stenosis in the Aged Population: A Prospective Swiss Multicenter Cohort Study , 2015, Spine.

[4]  F. Schwab,et al.  Comparison of complications, costs, and length of stay of three different lumbar interbody fusion techniques: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[5]  D. Kreiner,et al.  An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[6]  Hai-sheng Li,et al.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[7]  S. May,et al.  Is surgery more effective than non-surgical treatment for spinal stenosis, and which non-surgical treatment is more effective? A systematic review. , 2013, Physiotherapy.

[8]  L. Carreon,et al.  Predictive Factors for the Use of Autologous Cell Saver Transfusion in Lumbar Spinal Surgery , 2013, Spine.

[9]  P. Friedmann,et al.  Association Between Hospital Intraoperative Blood Transfusion Practices for Surgical Blood Loss and Hospital Surgical Mortality Rates , 2012, Annals of surgery.

[10]  R. Delamarter,et al.  Spinal Fusion in the United States: Analysis of Trends From 1998 to 2008 , 2012, Spine.

[11]  B. Strömqvist,et al.  Dural lesions in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: incidence, risk factors and effect on outcome , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[12]  O. Boachie-Adjei,et al.  Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality of Adult Scoliosis Surgery , 2011, Spine.

[13]  T. Witham,et al.  Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity , 2011, Neurological research.

[14]  M. Blauth,et al.  Mid-term results of PLIF/TLIF in trauma , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[15]  D. Chin,et al.  Fusion criteria for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with intervertebral cages : the significance of traction spur. , 2009, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[16]  H. Halm,et al.  Clinical and Radiologic 2—4-Year Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative and Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2 , 2006, Spine.

[17]  K. Bulsara,et al.  Perioperative Complications in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Anterior–Posterior Reconstruction for Lumbar Disc Degeneration and Instability , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[18]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Emerging technology in spine: should we rethink the past or move forward in spite of the past? , 2003, Spine.

[19]  M. Benoist The natural history of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis. , 2002, Joint, bone, spine : revue du rhumatisme.

[20]  K. Okuyama,et al.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[21]  D. Knook,et al.  The definition of anemia in older persons. , 1999, JAMA.

[22]  R. B. Cloward Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[23]  G. Ma Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with specialized instruments. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.