• Spine · Aug 2024

    A Cadaveric Comparison of Discectomy Performance During Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approach Using an Endoscopic Technique versus a Minimally Invasive Tubular Approach.

    • Venakat Boddapati, Frank Yuk, and Sohrab Virk.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery.
    • Spine. 2024 Aug 15.

    Study DesignCadaveric study.ObjectiveCompare discectomy performance between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) done via an endoscopic versus a tubular technique.Summary Of Background DataPerformance of an adequate discectomy is essential to lumbar fusion when performing a TLIF. Previous cadaveric studies comparing open and minimally invasive techniques have reported 36.6%-80% discectomy. There is controversy whether an endoscopic TLIF (E-TLIF) can allow for an adequate discectomy.Materials/MethodsAn E-TLIF was performed on 14 discs (T12-L5) and a minimally invasive tubular TLIF (T-TLIF) was performed on 15 discs (T12-L4, L5-S1). Fellowship trained surgeons performed the TLIFs. Each disc was transected after discectomy and a digital image was analyzed using an imaging processing software to determine the percent of discectomy. Each quadrant of the discectomy was compared. Quadrant one was defined as the left posterior-ipsilateral quadrant of the disc, with each quadrant numbered 2-4 clockwise around the disc. The time to perform the discectomy was compared. Pedicle screws were placed contralaterally to the TLIF and the change in interpedicular distance was compared between techniques after expandable cage implantation as a marker for indirect decompression. A student's t-test was used to determine statistical significance.ResultsThere was no difference in discectomy performance between techniques (48.86%+/-6.98% T-TLIF vs. 50.26%+/-7.38% E-TLIF, P=0.61). There was no statistical difference between T-TLIF vs E-TLIF at quadrants 1, 3 and 4. There was a difference in discectomy performance at quadrant 2 (39.02%+/-10.18% T-TLIF vs 50.13%+/-14.00% E-TLIF, P=0.02). There was no statistical difference between interpedicular distance created (2.20 mm+/-1.97 mm T-TLIF vs 1.36 mm+/-1.82 mm E-TLIF, P=0.24). E-TLIF took less time than MIS-TLIF (20.00 min+/-7.12 min vs 15.22 min+/-4.42 min, P=0.048).ConclusionOur cadaveric study demonstrates that an adequately performed E-TLIF discectomy may be comparable to a T-TLIF discectomy. Further research is required to maximize the efficiency and instrumentation of this technique.Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…