Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The unilateral transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative to the anterior (ALIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with pedicle screw instrumentation is gaining in popularity. At present, a prospective study using a standardized tool for outcome measurement after the transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with a follow-up of at least 3 years is not available in the current literature, although there have been reports on specific complications and cost efficiency. Therefore, a study of TLIF was undertaken. Fifty-two consecutive patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years were included, with the mean follow-up being 46 months (36–64). The indications were 22 isthmic spondylolistheses and 30 degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Thirty-nine cases were one-level, 11 cases were two-level, and two cases were three-level fusions. The pain and disability status was prospectively evaluated by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The status of bony fusion was evaluated by an independent radiologist using anterior–posterior and lateral radiographs. The operation time averaged 173 min for one-level and 238 min for multiple-level fusions. Average blood loss was 485 ml for one-level and 560 ml for multiple-level fusions. There were four serious complications registered: a deep infection, a persistent radiculopathy, a symptomatic contralateral disc herniation and a pseudarthrosis with loosening of the implants. Overall, the pain relief in the VAS and the reduction of the ODI was significant (P<0.05) at follow-up. The fusion rate was 89%. At the latest follow-up, significant differences of the ODI were neither found between isthmic spondylolistheses and degenerative diseases, nor between one- and multiple-level fusions. In conclusion, the TLIF technique has comparable results to other interbody fusions, such as the PLIF and ALIF techniques. The potential advantages of the TLIF technique include avoidance of the anterior approach and reduction of the approach related posterior trauma to the spinal canal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker JK, Reardon PR, Reardon MJ, Heggeness MH (1993) Vascular injury in anterior lumbar spine surgery. Spine 18:2227–2230

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barrick WT, Schoffermann JA, Reynolds JB, Goldthwaite ND, Mc Keehen M, Keanay D, White AH (2000) Anterior lumbar fusion improves discogenic pain at levels of prior posterolateral fusion. Spine 25:853–857

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM (2000) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 25:1437–1446

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brislin B, Vaccaro AR (2002) Advances in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 33:367–374

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buttermann G, Garvey T, Hunt A, Transfeld E, Bradford D, Boachie-Adjei O, Ogilvie J (1998) Lumbar fusion results related to diagnosis. Spine 23:116–127

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chitnavis B, Barbagallo G, Selway R, Dardis R, Hussain A, Gullan R (2001) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery: review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted. J Neurosurg 95:190–195

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen FB, Bunger CE (1997) Retrograde ejaculation after retroperitoneal lower lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 21:176–180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Enker P, Steffee AD (1994) Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop 300:90–101

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fairbanks JE, Couper JC, Davies JB (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman BJ, Licina P, Mehdian SH (2000) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with instrumented postero-lateral fusion: 5-year results in 60 patients. Eur Spine J 9:42–46

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A, Swedisch Lumbar Spine Study Group (2001) 2001 Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trail from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 26:2521–2532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hacker RJ (1997) Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain. Spine 22:660–666

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanley EN, David SM (1999) Current concepts review—lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of back pain. JBJS 5:716–730

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler Technik. Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102

    Google Scholar 

  15. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26:567–571

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr, Subach BR, Miller JS, Smith CD, Rodts GE Jr (2002) Comparison of the mini-open versus laparoscopic approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective review. Neurosurgery 51:97–103

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kozak JA, O‘Brien JP (1990) Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion. An independent analysis of a treatment for the disabled low-back pain patient. Spine 15:322–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuslich S, Ulstrom CL, Griffith SL, Ahern JW, Dowdle JD (1998) The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, technique, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trail. Spine 23:1267–1279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leufven C, Nordwall A (1999) Management of chronic disabling low back pain with 360 degrees fusion. Results from pain provocation test and concurrent posterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and pedicle screw instrumentation in patients with chronic disabling low back pain. Spine 24:2042–2045

    Google Scholar 

  20. Linson MA, Williams H (1991) Anterior and combined anteroposterior fusion for lumbar disc pain. A preliminary study. Spine 16:143–145

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Little DG, Mac Donald D (1994) The use of the percentage change in Oswestry disability index score as an outcome measure in lumbar spinal surgery. Spine 19:2139–2143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O‘Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique and two year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 394:64–72

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mandan S, Boeree NR (2002) Outcome of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolythic spondylolisthesis. Spine 27:1536–1542

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mayer HM (2000) The ALIF concept. Eur Spine J 9:35–43

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moskowitz A (2002) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am 33:359–366

    Google Scholar 

  27. Niskanen RO (2002) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. A two-year follow-up of spine surgery patients. Scand J Surg 91:208–211

    Google Scholar 

  28. Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K (1999) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 70:329–334

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ray CD (1997) Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 22:667–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Santos ERG, Goss DG, Morcom RK, Fraser RD (2003) Radiologic assessment of interboy fusion using carbon fiber cages. Spine 28:997–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J, Golthwaite N, Koestler M (2001) A prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusion to 360 degrees fusion (circumferential fusions). Spine 26:E207–E212

    Google Scholar 

  32. Steward G, Sachs BL (1996) Patient outcome after reoperation on the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:706–711

    Google Scholar 

  33. Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Kreuter W (1994) Low back pain hospitalisation. Recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine 19:1207–1213

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tiusanen H, Seitsalo S, Osterman K, Soini J (1996) Anterior interbody lumbar fusion in severe low back pain. Clin Orthop 324:153–163

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tiusanen H, Seitsalo S, Ostermann K, Soini J (1995) Retrograde ejaculation after anterior interbody lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 4:339–342

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wang JM, Kim DJ, Yun YH (1996) Posterior pedicular screw instrumentation and anterior interbody fusion in adult lumbar spondylolisthesis or grade one spondylolisthesis with segmental instability. J Spinal Disord 9:83–88

    Google Scholar 

  37. Weatherley CR, Pricked CF, O‘Brien JP (1986) Discogenic pain persisting despite solid posterior fusion. JBJS 68B:142–143

    Google Scholar 

  38. Weiner BK, Fraser RD (1998) Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine 23:634–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Whitecloud TS, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE (2001) Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior–posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 14:100–102

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Hackenberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hackenberg, L., Halm, H., Bullmann, V. et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14, 551–558 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1

Keywords

Navigation