Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing trends and outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures: A retrospective analysis.
Shahzad, Hania; Lee, Maximillian; Epitropoulous, Frank; Bhatti, Nazihah; Singh, Varun K; Kavuri, Venkat; Yu, Elizabeth.
Afiliación
  • Shahzad H; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Lee M; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Epitropoulous F; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Bhatti N; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Singh VK; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Kavuri V; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Yu E; Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
J Orthop ; 59: 82-85, 2025 Jan.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39355448
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

To describe utilization patterns of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures and to evaluate indirect healthcare utilization indicators such as revisions, infection, and complication rates for various TLIF techniques.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis using the Pearldiver database was conducted to identify patients who underwent TLIF between 2010 and 2022. The patient population was stratified into four groups TLIF with an open approach (TLIF-Open), TLIF with stereotactic navigation (TLIF-NAV), TLIF with the assistance of an operating microscope (TLIF-MI), and TLIF utilizing navigation and operating microscope (TLIF-Combined). Revision, infection, and complication rates were analyzed and compared between each technique with open procedure as the reference procedure using multivariate analysis.

Results:

Over the past 13 years, TLIF-Open procedures showed a consistent decrease in utilization, while TLIF-NAV, TLIF-MI, and TLIF-Combined approaches remained relatively stable without experiencing the same dramatic increase as the decline in TLIF-Open procedures. Multivariate regression analysis revealed, TLIF-NAV and TLIF-MI procedures were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing revision surgeries within 30 days post-operatively, with TLIF-NAV also being linked to a higher risk of infection within 30 days. The TLIF-MI group had a lower likelihood of acute kidney injury (AKI), while the TLIF-NAV group had a lower likelihood of pneumonia and urinary tract infections (UTI).

Conclusion:

There has been a noticeable shift in the utilization of TLIF procedures from open to minimally invasive approaches. While stereotactic navigation demonstrates favorable outcomes in terms of complications, surgeons must carefully consider infection risks and revision rates.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Orthop Año: 2025 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: India

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Orthop Año: 2025 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: India