Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
/ 0
- Details
- Category: Vol. 92, March 2024
- Hits: 120
Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, KARIM A. ELDABAA, SAMEH KASEM, MOHAMED Sh.S. ZAGHLOUL and MOHAMED A. ELGAIDI
Abstract
Background: Spinal fusion is a therapeutic treatment for chronic low back pain evolved from failed disc procedure, disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis spondylosis and resistance to conservative managment. Different methods of spinal fusion have evolved recently. Nevertheless, the optimal surgical tech-nique is not conclusively supported by science. No enough data was found comparing the efficiency and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) safety in comparison to other methods of spinal fusion in cases of spinal lumbar disorders especially lumbar spondylolisthesis. Aim of Study: To analyze clinical, functional and radiologi-cal outcome, regarding pain, functional disability, fusion rate, and complications of cases managed with TLIF. Patients and Methods: This Cross-sectional analytic study performed on 23 patients with single level spondylolisthesis not responding to conservative medical treatment. After verifica-tion clinically the patient underwent spinal fixation by TLIF technique. This study was conducted in Cairo University hospi-tals in the Neurosurgery department with detailed results shown below. Study design: Prospective descriptive case series. Results: Intraoperative and post-operative complications were seen in a time of 90 days and a statistical finding was noted. The Visual Analog Score (VAS) is a scale which can be used in qustionnaires. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is utilized by clinicians and specialists With respect to rates; In our review fusion rates couldn’t be assessed because of the shortage of time for follow-up. As most cases need longer time of follow up for a considerable length of time as long as 1 year to have the option to evaluate fusion In this way, we are expect-ing to follow-up our review cases for longer period to have the option to follow fusion. Conclusion: Each approach has its own risks and benefits with some similarities. Although is limited in number of cases and time of follow-up, it still shows and intial good experience with TLIF. In our study it shows good clinical and functional outcome regarding VAS score and oswestry disability index but it shows higher rates of complications and delayed fusion in comparison to other studies. Despited limitation of cases and shortage of time of follow-up might affect the result and out-come. We think that this method ought to be encouraged and used in certain situations. We have concluded that fixation with TLIF showed better outcome clinically, radiologically and functionally.