Skip to main content
JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques logoLink to JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques
. 2016 Jun 8;6(2):e22. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

Jeffrey L Gum 1, Deepak Reddy 1, Steven Glassman 1
PMCID: PMC6145629  PMID: 30237931

Abstract

Historically, posterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed using a directly posterior procedure (PLIF). Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) utilizes a more lateral window in order to access the interbody space without excessive dural retraction. Theoretical advantages of TLIF include increased fusion success, more complete foraminal decompression, better correction of deformity, and more effective treatment of discogenic pain. The procedure is done with the following steps:

  • 1 and 2. Preoperative planning and patient positioning are important to maximize the efficiency of the procedure. There is a wide variety of instrumentation and technique options; therefore, a systematic approach starting with setup is important.

  • 3. The spine is approached through a standard posterior midline incision. It is not necessary to expose the lateral gutters, but the addition of posterolateral fusion is common.

  • 4. Pedicle screw placement is undertaken via a standard approach.

  • 5. Decompression is initiated with a laminectomy in the midline, exposing the ligamentum.

  • 6. The ligamentum is carefully removed, and hemostasis is obtained. A facetectomy is then performed.

  • 7. Once the posterior bone elements are resected and the decompression is complete, the dura and neural elements are mobilized. The goal is to be able to access the posterior anulus and disc space easily without any dural tension.

  • 8. Distraction through the TLIF level helps facilitate interbody placement. We describe a triple distraction technique that uses the midline elements, and both contralateral and ipsilateral distraction methods.

  • 9. A window is formed on the disc, with care taken to protect the exiting and traversing roots. The window is enlarged using a combination of box osteotomes and Kerrison rongeurs. A window that is a minimum of 10 mm in size facilitates disc space preparation.

  • 10 and 11. Disc space preparation is performed using a combination of curets, pituitary rongeurs, and end-plate preparation tools. Thorough disc-space preparation is critical for both correcting the deformity and obtaining a solid fusion.

  • 12. The disc space is sized for an appropriate interbody cage. The anterior aspect of the disc space and the cage are both packed with bone graft. This may involve the use of iliac crest graft, local bone, or bone substitutes, depending on the specific clinical situation.

  • 13. Cage and screw placement is verified by biplane radiography, and lordosis is restored by compression across the screws bilaterally. Osteotomy of the contralateral facet may be necessary to achieve substantial restoration of lordosis.

  • 14. If the lateral gutters have been exposed, grafting in this region is undertaken as well. Care must be taken with graft placement on the TLIF side as facet and pars resection leaves the exiting route exposed.

  • 15. Closure is undertaken in a standard fashion.

Postoperative recovery does not differ substantially from other standard fusion procedures. Mobilization is undertaken over the first several weeks, and fusion healing is expected in the 6-month to 1-year time frame.


Download video file (2MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid1
Download video file (1.3MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid2
Download video file (14MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid3
Download video file (15.2MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid4
Download video file (17.1MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid5
Download video file (24.1MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid6
Download video file (16.7MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid7
Download video file (21MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid8
Download video file (20.6MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid9
Download video file (3.8MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid10
Download video file (7.6MB, mp4)
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00003.vid11

Footnotes

Published outcomes of this procedure can be found at: Spine J. 2015 Oct;15(10):S87, Spine J. 2014 Nov 1;14(11):S28-9, J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Aug;15(2):138-43, J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Sep;15(3):295-310.

Disclosure: On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work and “yes” to indicate that the author had other relationships or activities that could be perceived to influence, or have the potential to influence, what was written in this work.

References

  • 1.Asher AL, Speroff T, Dittus RS, Parker SL, Davies JM, Selden N, Nian H, Glassman S, Mummaneni P, Shaffrey C, Watridge C, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014. October 15;39(22)(Suppl 1):S106-16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McGirt MJ, Speroff T, Dittus RS, Harrell FE, Jr, Asher AL. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): general overview and pilot-year project description. Neurosurg Focus. 2013. January;34(1):E6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Asher AL, Norvell D, Sherry N, Devin CJ. Role of prospective registries in defining the value and effectiveness of spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014. October 15;39(22)(Suppl 1):S117-28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhou ZJ, Zhao FD, Fang XQ, Zhao X, Fan SW. Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011. September;15(3):295-310. Epub 2011 May 27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Abdu WA, Lurie JD, Spratt KF, Tosteson ANA, Zhao W, Tosteson TD, Herkowitz H, Longely M, Boden SD, Emery S, Weinstein JN. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009. October 1;34(21):2351-60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ha KY, Na KH, Shin JH, Kim KW. Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008. June;21(4):229-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Owens RK, 2nd, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF stratified by diagnostic indication. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014. May;27(3):144-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pannell WC, Savin DD, Scott TP, Wang JC, Daubs MD. Trends in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease in the United States. Spine J. 2015. August 1;15(8):1719-27. Epub 2013 Oct 31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005. June 15;30(12):1441-5; discussion 1446–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES. United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006. November 1;31(23):2707-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Høy K, Bünger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen ES, Li H, Andersen T. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013. September;22(9):2022-9. Epub 2013 Apr 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ekman P, Möller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007. September 15;32(20):2178-83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, Hansen ES, Høy K, Helmig P, Niedermann B, Eiskjoer SP, Bünger CE. Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006. December 1;31(25):2875-80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Soegaard R, Bünger CE, Christiansen T, Høy K, Eiskjaer SP, Christensen FB. Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007. October 15;32(22):2405-14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kuo C, Carreon LY, Schell B, Glassman SD. Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF at five-year follow-up stratified by diagnostic indication. Spine J. 2014. November 1;14(11):S28-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Ghogawala Z, McGirt MJ, Foley KT, Asher A. Benefit of TLIF versus PSF in lumbar spine disorders. Spine J. 2015. October;15(10):S87. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Adogwa O, Parker SL, Davis BJ, Aaronson O, Devin C, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ. Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011. August;15(2):138-43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES