Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2020; 81(05): 399-403
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698390
Original Article

Incidental Durotomy Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed with the Modified Wiltse Approach

Dimitri Sheinis
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Soroka University, Beer Sheva, Southern, Israel
,
Vadim Sheinis
2   Department of Orthopaedics, Assaf Harofeh Medical Centre, Be’er Ya’akov, Israel
,
Daniel Benharroch 
3   Department of Pathology, Soroka University, Beer Sheva, Southern, Israel
4   Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
,
Nissim Ohana
5   Department of Orthopaedics, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Incidental durotomy is an intraoperative complication that occurs in 3 to 27% of lumbar spine surgeries. It has been reported more commonly following revision spinal procedures.

Study Objectives To investigate the frequency of incidental durotomy while performing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using the modified Wiltse approach. A secondary goal was to compare the incidence of durotomy in patients undergoing primary spine surgery with those undergoing revision surgery.

Methods A group of consecutive patients who had undergone (TLIF) in the last 10 years ending in 2015 were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent TLIF via the modified Wiltse approach that included a central midline skin incision, followed by a paravertebral blunt dissection of the paraspinal muscles to reach the transverse processes. The deep paravertebral dissection was done conservatively, one side at a time. Demographic and clinical data were collected when relevant to the comparison.

Results The study cohort encompassed 257 patients: 200 primary cases and 57 revisions. The frequency of incidental durotomy was equal in both groups: 3.5% each (7/200 and 2/57). All durotomies were repaired primarily. No other immediate or late complications were observed during follow-up.

Conclusion The present study displays a limited incidence of durotomy in the primary interventions and to a lesser degree in the revisions, all of which had used a TLIF performed with the modified Wiltse approach. This procedure probably circumvented the need for further revisions.

Keywords

spinal surgery - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - revision - incidental durotomy


Publication History

Received: 06 January 2019

Accepted: 23 May 2019

Article published online:
25 June 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Ishikura H, Ogihara S, Oka H. , et al. Risk factors for incidental durotomy during posterior open spine surgery for degenerative diseases in adults: a multicenter observational study. PLoS One 2017; 12 (11) e0188038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kohls MR, Jain N, Khan SN. What are the rates, reasons, and risk factors of 90-day hospital readmission after lumbar discectomy?: An institutional experience. Clin Spine Surg 2018; 31 (08) E375-E380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Enders F, Ackemann A, Müller S, Kiening K, Orakcioglu B. Risk factors and management of incidental durotomy in lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2018; 31 (03) 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chen Z, Shao P, Sun Q, Zhao D. Risk factors for incidental durotomy during lumbar surgery: a retrospective study by multivariate analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 130: 101-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Murphy ME, Kerezoudis P, Alvi MA. , et al. Risk factors for dural tears: a study of elective spine surgery. Neurol Res 2017; 39 (02) 97-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Khanna N, Deol G, Poulter G, Ahuja A. Medialized, muscle-splitting approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: technique and multicenter perioperative results. Spine 2016; 41 (08) (Suppl. 08) S90-S96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, Nelson WE. The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1968; 50 (05) 919-926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tian Y, Liu X. Clinical outcomes of two minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016; 26 (07) 745-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wiltse LL, Spencer CW. New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 1988; 13 (06) 696-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's translation) [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982; 120 (03) 343-347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kobayashi K, Ando K, Kato F. , et al. Reoperation within 2 years after lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 2018; 27 (08) 1972-1980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Anand N, Baron EM, Bray Jr RS. Modified muscle-sparing paraspinal approach for stabilization and interlaminar decompression: a minimally invasive technique for pedicle screw-based posterior nonfusion stabilization. SAS J 2008; 2 (01) 40-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zhou C, Tian YH, Zheng YP, Liu XY, Wang HH. Mini-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion through Wiltse approach to treating lumbar spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg 2016; 8 (01) 44-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar