Increased incidence of pseudarthrosis after unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spondylosis

Clinical article

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with segmental pedicular instrumentation is a wellestablished procedure used to treat lumbar spondylosis with or without spondylolisthesis. Available biomechanical and clinical studies that compared unilateral and bilateral constructs have produced conflicting data regarding patient outcomes and hardware complications.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was undertaken by a group of neurosurgeons. They prospectively enrolled 80 patients into either bilateral or unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation groups (40 patients/group). Demographic data collected for each group included sex, age, body mass index, tobacco use, and Workers' Compensation/litigation status. Operative data included segments operated on, number of levels involved, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications. Long-term outcomes (hardware malfunction, wound dehiscence, and pseudarthrosis) were recorded. For all patients, preoperative baseline and 6-month postoperative scores for Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) outcomes were recorded.

Results

Patient follow-up times ranged from 37 to 63 months (mean 52 months). No patients were lost to follow-up. The patients who underwent unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation (unilateral cohort) were slightly younger than those who underwent bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation (bilateral cohort) (mean age 42 vs 47 years, respectively; p = 0.02). No other significant differences were detected between cohorts with regard to demographic data, mean number of lumbar levels operated on, or distribution of the levels operated on. Estimated blood loss was higher for patients in the bilateral cohort, but length of stay was similar for patients in both cohorts. The incidence of pseudarthrosis was significantly higher among patients in the unilateral cohort (7 patients [17.5%]) than among those in the bilateral cohort (1 patient [2.5%]) (p = 0.02). Wound dehiscence occurred for 1 patient in the unilateral cohort. Reoperation was offered to 8 patients in the unilateral cohort and 1 patient in the bilateral cohort (p = 0.03). The physical component scores of the Medical Outcomes SF-36 outcomes improved significantly for all patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with either unilateral or bilateral segmental pedicular instrumentation is an effective treatment for lumbar spondylosis. Because patients with unilateral constructs were 7 times more likely to experience pseudarthrosis and require reoperation, TLIF with bilateral constructs might be the biomechanically superior technique.

Abbreviations used in this paper:HRQOL = health-related quality of life; MCS = mental component summary; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PCS = physical component summary; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; rhBMP-2 = human bone morphogenetic protein; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Marc Arginteanu, M.D., 1158 5th Ave., New York, NY 10029. email: neurosurgery@excite.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online August 1, 2014; DOI: 10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13488.

  • 1 Ames CP, , Acosta FL Jr, , Chi J, , Iyengar J, , Muiru W, & Acaroglu E, : Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E562E566, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2 Aoki Y, , Yamagata M, , Ikeda Y, , Nakajima F, , Ohtori S, & Nakagawa K, : 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. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 17:153159, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3 Chen HH, , Cheung HH, , Wang WK, , Li A, & Li KC: Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E92E96, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4 Chen SH, , Lin SC, , Tsai WC, , Wang CW, & Chao SH: Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery—a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:72, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5 Chrastil J, , Low JB, , Whang PG, & Patel AA: Complications associated with the use of the recombinant human bone morphogenetic proteins for posterior interbody fusions of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:E1020E1027, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6 Cloward RB: The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154168, 1953

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7 Crandall DG, , Revella J, , Patterson J, , Huish E, , Chang M, & McLemore R: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with rhBMP-2 in spinal deformity, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative disease—part 1: Large series diagnosis related outcomes and complications with 2-to 9-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:11281136, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8 Crandall DG, , Revella J, , Patterson J, , Huish E, , Chang M, & McLemore R: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with rhBMP-2 in spinal deformity, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative disease—part 2: BMP dosage-related complications and long-term outcomes in 509 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:11371145, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9 Deutsch H, & Musacchio MJ Jr: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20:3 E10, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10 Fernández-Fairen M, , Sala P, , Ramírez H, & Gil J: A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:395401, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11 Fogel GR, , Toohey JS, , Neidre A, & Brantigan JW: Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J 8:570577, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12 Goel VK, , Lim TH, , Gwon J, , Chen JY, , Winterbottom JM, & Park JB, : Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:3 Suppl S155S161, 1991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13 Hackenberg L, , Halm H, , Bullmann V, , Vieth V, , Schneider M, & Liljenqvist U: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14:551558, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14 Harms J, & Rolinger H: [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl).]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343347, 1982. (Ger)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15 Harms JG, & Jeszenszky D: The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:8899, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16 Harris BM, , Hilibrand AS, , Savas PE, , Pellegrino A, , Vaccaro AR, & Siegler S, : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:E65E70, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17 Humphreys SC, , Hodges SD, , Patwardhan AG, , Eck JC, , Murphy RB, & Covington LA: Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:567571, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18 Johnston CE II, , Ashman RB, , Baird AM, & Allard RN: Effect of spinal construct stiffness on early fusion mass incorporation. Experimental study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:908912, 1990

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19 Kabins MB, , Weinstein JN, , Spratt KF, , Found EM, , Goel VK, & Woody J, : Isolated L4-L5 fusions using the variable screw placement system: unilateral versus bilateral. J Spinal Disord 5:3949, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20 Kotil K, , Ali Akçetin M, & Savaş Y: Clinical and radiologic outcomes of TLIF applications with or without pedicle screw: a double center prospective pilot comparative study. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:359366, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21 Lowe TG, , Tahernia AD, , O'Brien MF, & Smith DA: Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:3138, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22 McAfee PC, , Farey ID, , Sutterlin CE, , Gurr KR, , Warden KE, & Cunningham BW: The effect of spinal implant rigidity on vertebral bone density. A canine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:6 Suppl S190S197, 1991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23 McAfee PC, , Farey ID, , Sutterlin CE, , Gurr KR, , Warden KE, & Cunningham BW: 1989 Volvo Award in Basic Science. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14:919926, 1989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24 Moskowitz A: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 33:359366, 2002

  • 25 Mummaneni PV, , Pan J, , Haid RW, & Rodts GE: Contribution of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 to the rapid creation of interbody fusion when used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine 1:1923, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26 Ong KL, , Villarraga ML, , Lau E, , Carreon LY, , Kurtz SM, & Glassman SD: Off-label use of bone morphogenetic proteins in the United States using administrative data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:17941800, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27 Schleicher P, , Beth P, , Ottenbacher A, , Pflugmacher R, , Scholz M, & Schnake KJ, : Biomechanical evaluation of different asymmetrical posterior stabilization methods for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 9:363371, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28 Sethi A, , Lee S, & Vaidya R: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18:430434, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29 Sethi A, , Muzumdar AM, , Ingalhalikar A, & Vaidya R: Biomechanical analysis of a novel posterior construct in a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion model an in vitro study. Spine J 11:863869, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30 Slucky AV, , Brodke DS, , Bachus KN, , Droge JA, & Braun JT: Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 6:7885, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31 Smith AJ, , Arginteanu M, , Moore F, , Steinberger A, & Camins M: Increased incidence of cage migration and nonunion in instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bioabsorbable cages. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:388393, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32 Steffee AD, , Biscup RS, & Sitkowski DJ: Segmental spine plates with pedicle screw fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res (203) 4553, 1986

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33 Steffee AD, , Sitkowski DJ, & Topham LS: Total vertebral body and pedicle arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (203) 203208, 1986

  • 34 Suk KS, , Lee HM, , Kim NH, & Ha JW: Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:18431847, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35 Ware JE Jr, & Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473483, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36 Wittink H, , Turk DC, , Carr DB, , Sukiennik A, & Rogers W: Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Clin J Pain 20:133142, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37 Xiao YX, , Chen QX, & Li FC: Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the technique, indications and graft materials. J Int Med Res 37:908917, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38 Xue H, , Tu Y, & Cai M: Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J 12:209215, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 363 213 20
Full Text Views 562 15 0
PDF Downloads 295 14 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0