Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

What every spine surgeon should know about transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery for herniated discs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to report our experiences on managing large lumbar disc herniations with several symptoms by surgery with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to shed light for spine surgeons about TLIF surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated our database of patients with various lumbar spine pathologies who underwent TLIF surgery from 2014 to 2017. We separated 18 patients who had been operated on for extruded disc herniation, which causes severe pain and radicular symptoms. The pain was quantified by visual analog scores (VAS). The disability status were pre-operatively and post-operatively evaluated by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We evaluated the patients for at least two years. Interbody fusion was detected by routine radiographs at six, 12, and 24 months after surgery.

Results

An ODI outcomes analysis demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the six and 24-month mean scores compared with the pre-operative scores on the same scales. Patients’ mobility improved significantly after surgery, as indicated by the decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index from 72 to 23 over two years (p < 0.001). Pain rapidly decreased in all patients and continued to decrease at the time of the latest follow-up. The mean pre-operative VAS scores for pain was 8.8; it had improved to 2.4 after surgery (p < 0.05). Within the follow-up period of two years, the ascertained mean VAS declined from 8.8 to 1.4 (p < 0.001). The average disc space height at the herniated levels was fairly well maintained. No patient had evidence of implant failure. Interbody fusion was graded as definitely solid in 100% of cases two years post-operatively. One patient displayed a superficial wound infection. Following appropriate debridement and antibiotics, the wound healed without sequelae. No major complications were observed, including permanent neurological deficit, pulmonary embolism, peri-operative cardiac event, or death.

Conclusions

The findings of our study and those in the literature showed that primary herniated disc patients with radicular and chronic low back pain, degenerative changes, bi-radicular symptoms, and instability are required to have fusion after a discectomy. Being a heavy-duty worker is also a criterion for fusion surgery. TLIF is performed by a unilateral approach preserving the interlaminar surface on the contralateral side, which can be used as a site for additional fusion. As an effective results TLIF procedure should be chosen for fusion surgery.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2:673–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harms J, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–99

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G et al (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1(1):2–18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Vaughan PA, Malcolm BW, Maistelli GL (1988) Results of L4–L5 disc excision alone versus disc excision and fusion. Spine 13:690–695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Takeshima T, Kambara K, Miyata S et al (2000) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of disc excision for lumbar disc herniation with and without posterolateral fusion. Spine 25:450–456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Satoh I, Yonenobu K, Hosono N et al (2006) Indication of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar disc herniation. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:104–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gertzbein SD, Hollopeter M, Hall SD (1998) Analysis of circumferential lumbar fusion outcome in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 11:472–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotilainen E (1998) Long-term outcome of suffering from clinical instability after microsurgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Acta Neurochir 140:120–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Salenius P, Laurent LE (1977) Results of operative treatment of lumbar disc herniation. A survey of 886 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 48:630–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Overdevest GM, Peul WC, Brand R et al (2017) Tubular discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 88(12):1008–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loupasis GA, Stamos K, Katonis PG et al (1999) Seven- to 20-year outcome of lumbar discectomy. Spine 24:2313–2317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Naylor A (1974) Late results of laminectomy for lumbar disc prolapse. A review after ten to twenty-five years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 56:17–29

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Sullivan MG, Connolly AE, Buckley TF (1990) Recurrent lumbar disc protrusion. Br J Neurosurg 4:319–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thome C, Barth M, Scharf J et al (2005) Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine 2:271–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eie N (1978) Comparison of the results in patients operated upon for ruptured lumbar discs with and without spinal fusion. Acta Neurochir 41:107–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Swartz KR, Trost GR (2003) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 15:E10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cinotti G, Gumina S, Giannicola G et al (1999) Contralateral recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of discectomy compared with those in primary herniation. Spine 24:800–806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW et al (2003) Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:102–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Suk KS, Lee HM, Moon SH et al (2001) Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management. Spine 26:672–676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barth M, Weiss C, Thome C (2008) Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: part 1-evaluation of clinical outcome. Spine 33:265–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Watters WC, McGirt MJ (2009) An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine J 9:240–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Taketomi E (1993) Comparison of operative results of lumbar disc herniation in manual laborers and athletes. Spine 18:2222–2226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oxland TR, Lund T (2000) Biomechanics of stand-alone cages and cages in combination with posterior fixation: a literature review. Eur Spine J 9:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Niemeyer T, Halm H, Hackenberg L et al (2006) Post-discectomy syndrome treated with lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 30(3):163–166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacquot F, Gastambide D (2013) Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it? Int Orthop 37(8):1507–1510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E et al (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33(6):1683–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hu W, Tang J, Wu X et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications. Int Orthop 40(9):1883–1890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bekir Yavuz Uçar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çaçan, M.A., Uçar, B.Y. What every spine surgeon should know about transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery for herniated discs. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 43, 883–889 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4251-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4251-x

Keywords

Navigation