Der Orthopade · 2015
[The PLIF and TLIF techniques. Indication, technique, advantages, and disadvantages].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fleege C, Rickert M, Rauschmann M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Posterior fusion procedures (posterior lumbar interbody fusion, PLIF; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF) are long-established surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion. They differ from anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) procedures by approach and associated complications.
OBJECTIVES: The posterior fusion procedures PLIF and TLIF are presented and compared with other fusion methods, including advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, the surgical technique and their complications are described. Based on the current literature, it is discussed which surgical techniques can be used in various cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search of "posterior spinal fusion treatments" and the clinical experience of the authors are summarized in this review article.
RESULTS: PLIF and TLIF procedures reduced back and leg pain, restored the sagittal profile of the lumbar spine, and achieved good fusion rates and long-term stability. Advantages of the TLIF procedure include shorter operative times, less blood loss, less intraoperative risk of injury to neural structures, and shorter convalescence. Compared with the interposition of a cage in the ALIF technique, a further step with the risk of vascular injury is eliminated.
CONCLUSIONS: The PLIF and TLIF procedures are almost equivalent posterior fusion procedures with high fusion rates, good long-term clinical outcomes, and low risk of complications. The TLIF procedure is slightly advantageous: lower nerve irritation rates, shorter operative times, and less extensive operation. Thus, the TLIF procedure is available for cases with single-sided pathologies and the PLIF procedure is available for bilateral compressions.
OBJECTIVES: The posterior fusion procedures PLIF and TLIF are presented and compared with other fusion methods, including advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, the surgical technique and their complications are described. Based on the current literature, it is discussed which surgical techniques can be used in various cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search of "posterior spinal fusion treatments" and the clinical experience of the authors are summarized in this review article.
RESULTS: PLIF and TLIF procedures reduced back and leg pain, restored the sagittal profile of the lumbar spine, and achieved good fusion rates and long-term stability. Advantages of the TLIF procedure include shorter operative times, less blood loss, less intraoperative risk of injury to neural structures, and shorter convalescence. Compared with the interposition of a cage in the ALIF technique, a further step with the risk of vascular injury is eliminated.
CONCLUSIONS: The PLIF and TLIF procedures are almost equivalent posterior fusion procedures with high fusion rates, good long-term clinical outcomes, and low risk of complications. The TLIF procedure is slightly advantageous: lower nerve irritation rates, shorter operative times, and less extensive operation. Thus, the TLIF procedure is available for cases with single-sided pathologies and the PLIF procedure is available for bilateral compressions.