The Choice of TLIF for Lumbar Interbody Fusion



Fig. 27.1
Steps for an open right L4–L5 TLIF. (a) Exposure of the lamina and articular and transverse processes. (b) Osteotomy at the level of the right L4 pars interarticularis. (c) Resection of the right superior L5 articular process exposes the L4 nerve root and the L4–L5 disk. (d) Thorough diskectomy is performed without retraction of L4 nerve root. (e) Insertion of the cage is performed at a 45° angle and positioned across the midline. (f) Postoperative radiograph demonstrates ideal cage position and pedicle instrumentation



The osseous exposure of the TLIF often requires a complete, unilateral facetectomy; while some surgeons may prefer to leave a medial bridge of the lamina and articular process, we strive to maximize our decompression of the neural elements. This is begun by performing a hemilaminotomy and connecting this to a transverse osteotomy at the level of the pars interarticularis (Fig. 27.1b). The remainder of the superior articular process of the caudal vertebrae is removed to the level of the pedicle (Fig. 27.1c). The ligamentum flavum is resected and the lateral dural edge is exposed; this may be tailored to the degree of central stenosis. This should provide exposure of the axilla of the exiting nerve root; any retraction is rarely needed to access the disk (Fig. 27.1d). Bleeding from the epidural venous plexus is controlled with bipolar cautery and hemostatic agents. The annulus is incised, posterior osteophytes are removed, and a diskectomy is performed using curettes, rongeurs, and disk shavers. The trajectory of the diskectomy and the interbody graft is at a 45° angle to the disk space (as opposed to the directly ventral trajectory of the PLIF interbody graft) in order to achieve a graft placement that crosses the midline of the vertebral body (Fig. 27.1e). The end plates are prepared with a variety of instruments according to surgeon’s preference and an interbody graft is placed with fluoroscopic guidance. Interbody graft placement may vary by case: more anteriorly placed grafts provide increased lordosis in cases where deformity correction is prioritized, and more posteriorly positioned grafts provide increased foraminal decompression. Biomechanically, the TLIF interbody graft should cross the midline to avoid inducing a coronal imbalance, cover more than 20 % of the end plate surface [50], and avoid the central region where the end plate is structurally weakest [51]. Uni- or bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation, posterolateral fusion, hemostasis, and wound closure are performed in the usual manner (Fig. 27.1f). Off-label utilization of rhBMP-2 is also utilized by some surgeons in the interspace (inside or outside the allograft) or the posterolateral space, particularly in patients at high risk of pseudarthrosis.

Mini-open and tubular variations of TLIF are also favored by our group. Utilizing fluoroscopy or intraoperative navigation, a paramedian incision is planned 4 cm off the midline. A series of tubular dilators are used to create a transmuscular (Wiltse-type) working channel. Ideal docking position for a TLIF is over the ipsilateral pars interarticularis with an expandable (mini-open variant) or fixed 26 mm working tube. Neural element decompression and preparation of the interspace are performed in the same manner utilizing adapted instruments with a bayoneted shaft so as not to obstruct the field of view. Expandable dilators allow for a working space of 45–50 mm, so single-level pedicle screw instrumentation can then be placed under direct vision; otherwise percutaneous instrumentation is utilized. Given the increased radiation exposure inherent to mini-open TLIF procedures, a further alternative is to replace fluoroscopy with O-arm guidance, thus decreasing radiation exposure [52, 53] and potentially improving accuracy of pedicle screw insertion [54].



27.3 Complications


Fusion rates are comparable between P/TLIF procedures, with both achieving high rates of arthrodesis, upward of 90 % in most reported studies (average-pooled fusion rate of 93.2 %) [5560]. A recent review described the average published rates of major complications associated with LIF procedures [61], noting a 4.9 % (0–7 %) incidence of neurological injury, a 5.3 % (0–11 %) rate of radiculitis, a 10.6 % (0–35 %) rate of hardware or graft migration, a 7.3 % (2–14 %) incidence of durotomy, and a 3.7 % (0–9 %) incidence of infection. The higher reported rate of neurological complications in PLIF as compared to TLIF has in part heralded the increased utilization of TLIF over PLIF approaches for posterior lumbar interbody fusions [58].

Insertion of the intervertebral cage is the additional step that sets P/TLIF apart from other forms of posterior instrumented fusion and therefore carries the additional risks. Intervertebral graft displacement into the spinal canal was a much-feared complication before the advent of supplementary pedicle screw fixation but now is exceedingly rare; the cage must be snug against the end plates and ideally distract slightly the interspace. This distraction needs to be counterbalanced with the risk of end plate violation and fracture, particularly in osteoporotic patients and more recent self-expanding cages. Distraction in these patients can also be performed on the pedicle screws firmly anchored in cortical bone, less affected by osteoporosis. Other maneuvers such as alternatively distracting the interspace from both sides may also be employed.

The anterior annulus fibrosus should never be violated during the diskectomy and end plate preparation process: extreme care must be taken during this step, particularly with automatic diskectomy devices and stackable or self-expanding cages. Expulsion of the graft into the abdomen may be catastrophic at L4–L5 or above due to large vessel injury. Immediate general or vascular surgery assistance and emergent laparotomy may be a lifesaving measure in these cases (Fig. 27.2).

A314055_1_En_27_Fig2_HTML.gif


Fig. 27.2
Axial image (a) and sagittal reconstruction (b) of a CT of the abdomen demonstrating violation of the anterior annulus and intra-abdominal intervertebral implant. This occurred at the L5–S1 level and therefore below the aortic bifurcation; the patient underwent laparotomy and ALIF

As discussed above, variable fusion rates can be found in the literature for posterior LIF; there is no clear advantage of one technique over another. It is our opinion that thorough debridement of the interspace is the biggest determinant of fusion, rather than utilization of one specific posterior LIF variation. Less nerve root retraction is necessary for TLIF, but extreme care should be taken to avoid cautery around the dorsal root ganglion, which may lead to postoperative dysesthesia that may be particularly difficult to treat.


27.4 Conclusion


Posterior interbody fusion is a safe and time-tested technique that may lead to excellent stabilization of the motion segment even after a very aggressive neural element decompression. As with any other surgical techniques applied to degenerative spinal disorders, its effectiveness is limited by the ability of the clinician to adequately examine the patient, correlate his or her complaints to radiological findings, and select the appropriate surgical technique.


References



1.

Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 1953;10(2):154–68. doi:10.​3171/​jns.​1953.​10.​2.​0154.CrossRefPubMed


2.

Muller W. Transperitoneale Freilegung der Wirbelsaule bei Tuberkuloser Spondylitis. Dtsch Z Chir. 1906;85:128–35.CrossRef


3.

Poppen JL. The ruptured intervertebral disc. Bull N Engl Med Cent. 1944;6:403–12.


4.

Dandy WE. Newer aspects of ruptured intervertebral disks. Ann Surg. 1944;119(4):481–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed


5.

Hibbs RA. The treatment of deformities of the spine caused by poliomyelitis: a report of eight cases in which fusion operations were performed. J Am Med Assoc. 1917;LXIX(10):787. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​1917.​02590370023010.CrossRef


6.

Cloward RB. Changes in the vertebra caused by ruptured intervertebral discs; observations on their formation and treatment. Am J Surg. 1952;84(2):151–60.CrossRefPubMed


7.

Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop. 1988;227:99–102.PubMed


8.

Lin PM. A technical modification of Cloward’s posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 1977;1(2):118–24.CrossRefPubMed


9.

Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop. 1983;180:154–68.PubMed


10.

Kim K-T, Lee S-H, Lee Y-H, Bae S-C, Suk K-S. Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2006;31(12):1351–7. doi:10.​1097/​01.​brs.​0000218635.​14571.​55; discussion 1358.CrossRefPubMed


11.

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. 2013;26(7):359–66. doi:10.​1097/​BSD.​0b013e318249599f​.CrossRefPubMed


12.

Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Für Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120(3):343–7. doi:10.​1055/​s-2008-1051624.CrossRef

May 4, 2017 | Posted by in ORTHOPEDIC | Comments Off on The Choice of TLIF for Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access