Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a novel minimally invasive expandable interbody cage: patient-reported outcomes and radiographic parameters

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
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

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a novel multidirectional in situ expandable minimally invasive surgery (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 69 consecutive patients undergoing a 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF using an expandable cage was performed over a 2-year period. Standard MIS techniques with pedicle screw fixation were used in all cases. Upright lateral dynamic flexion/extension radiographs were reviewed prior to and at 1 year after surgery. Clinical metrics included numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and the SF-12 and VR-12 physical and mental health surveys. Radiographic parameters included anterior and posterior disc height, neuroforaminal height, spondylolisthesis, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and fusion rate.

RESULTS

A total of 69 patients representing 75 operative levels met study inclusion criteria. The mean patient age at surgery was 63.4 ± 1.2 years, with a female predominance of 51%. The average radiographic and clinical follow-ups were 372 and 368 days, respectively. A total of 63 patients (91%) underwent 1-level surgery and 6 patients (9%) underwent 2-level surgery. Significant reductions of numeric rating scale scores for back and leg pain were observed—from 6.1 ± 0.7 to 2.5 ± 0.3 (p < 0.0001) and 4.9 ± 0.6 to 1.9 ± 0.2 (p < 0.0001), respectively. A similar reduction in Oswestry Disability Index from 38.0 ± 4.6 to 20.0 ± 2.3 (p < 0.0001) was noted. Likewise, SF-12 and VR-12 scores all showed statistically significant improvement from baseline (p < 0.001). The mean anterior and posterior disc heights improved from 8.7 ± 1.0 mm to 13.4 ± 1.5 mm (p = 0.0001) and 6.5 ± 0.8 mm to 9.6 ± 1.1 mm (p = 0.0001), respectively. Neuroforaminal height improved from 17.6 ± 2.0 mm to 21.9 ± 2.5 mm (p = 0.0001). When present, spondylolisthesis was, on average, reduced from 4.3 ± 0.5 mm to 1.9 ± 0.2 mm (p = 0.0001). Lumbar lordosis improved from 47.8° ± 5.5° to 58.5° ± 6.8° (p = 0.2687), and no significant change in segmental lordosis was observed. The overall rate of radiographic fusion was 93.3% at 1 year. No perioperative complications requiring operative revision were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of MIS TLIFs, use of this novel interbody cage was shown to be safe and effective. Significant improvements in pain and disability were observed. Effective and durable restoration of disc height and neuroforaminal height and reduction of spondylolisthesis were obtained, with concurrent gains in lumbar lordosis. Taken together, this device offers excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes via an MIS approach.

ABBREVIATIONS

ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion; DLIF = direct lateral interbody fusion; LBP = low-back pain; LL = lumbar lordosis; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; NRS = numeric rating scale; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; PRO = patient-reported outcome; SL = segmental lordosis; 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

Correspondence Richard G. Fessler: Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. rfessler@rush.edu.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online June 4, 2021; DOI: 10.3171/2020.11.SPINE201139.

Disclosures Dr. R. G. Fessler is a consultant to Benvenue, Inc.

  • 1

    Fatoye F, Gebrye T, Odeyemi I. Real-world incidence and prevalence of low back pain using routinely collected data. Rheumatol Int. 2019;39(4):619626.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Kim CW, Doerr TM, Luna IY, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using expandable technology: a clinical and radiographic analysis of 50 patients. World Neurosurg. 2016;90:228235.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(6):769781.

  • 4

    Teng I, Han J, Phan K, Mobbs R. A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;44:1117.

  • 5

    Price JP, Dawson JM, Schwender JD, Schellhas KP. Clinical and radiologic comparison of minimally invasive surgery with traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 452 patients from a single center. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(2):E121E126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Perez-Cruet MJ, Hussain NS, White GZ, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based on long-term analysis of 304 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(3):E191E198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Alvi MA, Kurian SJ, Wahood W, et al. Assessing the difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes between expandable cage and nonexpandable cage among patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:596606.e1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Hong JY, Suh SW, Modi HN, et al. Reliability analysis for radiographic measures of lumbar lordosis in adult scoliosis: a case-control study comparing 6 methods. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(9):15511557.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Coe JD, Zucherman JF, Kucharzyk DW, et al. Multiexpandable cage for minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;9:341347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Mica MC, Voronov LI, Carandang G, et al. Biomechanics of an expandable lumbar interbody fusion cage deployed through transforaminal approach. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12(4):520527.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Aoki Y, Nakajima A, Takahashi H, et al. Influence of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch on surgical outcomes of short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Schuler TC, Subach BR, Branch CL, et al. Segmental lumbar lordosis: manual versus computer-assisted measurement using seven different techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(5):372379.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 673 673 673
Full Text Views 67 67 67
PDF Downloads 87 87 87
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0