Neurobionplus
Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 311 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
REVIEW ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 44  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 159-162
Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity: Surgical options of PLIF, TLIF and MI-TLIF


Department of Orthopedic Surgery, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119074, Singapore

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication27-Mar-2010
 

   Abstract 

Degenerative disease of the lumbar spine is common in ageing populations. It causes disturbing back pain, radicular symptoms and lowers the quality of life. We will focus our discussion on the surgical options of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative spinal deformities, which include symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. Through a description of each procedure, we hope to illustrate the potential benefits of TLIF over PLIF. In a retrospective study of 53 ALIF/PLIF patients and 111 TLIF patients we found reduced risk of vessel and nerve injury in TLIF patients due to less exposure of these structures, shortened operative time and reduced intra-operative bleeding. These advantages could be translated to shortened hospital stay, faster recovery period and earlier return to work. The disadvantages of TLIF such as incomplete intervertebral disc and vertebral end-plate removal and potential occult injury to exiting nerve root when under experienced hands are rare. Hence TLIF remains the mainstay of treatment in degenerative deformities of the lumbar spine. However, TLIF being a unilateral transforaminal approach, is unable to decompress the opposite nerve root. This may require contralateral laminotomy, which is a fairly simple procedure.The use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) to treat degenerative lumbar spinal deformity is still in its early stages. Although the initial results appear promising, it remains a difficult operative procedure to master with a steep learning curve. In a recent study comparing 29 MI-TLIF patients and 29 open TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, with no difference in SF-36 scores at six months and two years. Whether it can replace traditional TLIF as the surgery of choice for degenerative lumbar deformity remains unknown and more studies are required to validate the safety and efficiency.

Keywords: Degenerative spine, lumbar spine fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal fusion

How to cite this article:
Hey HD, Hee HT. Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity: Surgical options of PLIF, TLIF and MI-TLIF. Indian J Orthop 2010;44:159-62

How to cite this URL:
Hey HD, Hee HT. Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity: Surgical options of PLIF, TLIF and MI-TLIF. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2010 [cited 2019 Jul 21];44:159-62. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2010/44/2/159/62066

   Introduction Top


With an ageing population, surgeons face a new challenge of managing patients with age related medical problems. Degenerative spinal disease has become a greater problem than before. Its spectrum includes degenerative disc diseases, facet joint arthritis, spinal stenosis, degenerative spinal scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. [1] Often, they present with back pain, radicular pain and stiffness resulting in numerous people unable to perform in their work and losing quality of life. [1]

We will focus our discussion on the surgical options of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative spinal deformities, which include symptomatic spondylolisthesis and scoliosis.

Conservative management has always been advocated for these patients prior to surgical management. [2] Although properly selected patients are likely to benefit from surgery, under the circumstances of a non emergency situation, most patients prefer conservative approaches comprising of physiotherapy, acupuncture and lifestyle modifications. Surgery is indicated in patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative lumbar scoliosis. [3],[4]

To meet the increasing demands and expectations of patients, more innovative surgical techniques have been developed. New techniques attempt to shorten operative time and achieve faster recovery with lesser operative complications. Therefore the earlier works of anterior/ posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF/PLIF) have been challenged by the gradually evolved transforaminal approach. Further, increasing numbers of surgeons are continuously striving to improve operative results via minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). We attempt to discuss the options of PLIF and TLIF by presenting their advantages and disadvantages. However, it must be emphasized that to date, there are still no well designed, prospective, double blinded, randomized-controlled trials providing evidence to distinguish the superiority of one technique over the others.

Throughout the many years since the description of PLIF by Briggs and Milligan in 1944, [5] the practice of PLIF has evolved tremendously. With the development of more options of autologous bone grafting, newer methods of spinal segment fusion techniques, newer implants including the vast variety of cages we use today and the use of pedicle screws for posterior instrumentation, the results of spinal fusion in PLIF has improved. [6],[7],[8][9] However, in 1982, Harms and Rolinger reported a newer technique of achieving insertion of the interbody cage packed with bone graft via the transforaminal route, termed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). [10] This created another option for surgeons in their armamentarium for treatment of patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative lumbar scoliosis.


   PLIF vs. TLIF Top


The concept of a PLIF involves positioning the patient prone on a surgical table to assume a normal lordotic position of the lumbar spine. A midline incision and retraction of paraspinal musculature are performed. In the event when posterolateral fusion across transverse processes is intended, dissection is carried further until the transverse processes are accessible. A laminectomy is performed to allow access to the central spinal canal. The visible dura is then retracted medially together with the traversing nerve roots to achieve access to the intervertebral discs. The disc is then removed piecemeal and the adjacent endplates of the vertebral bodies prepared. Insertion of cage(s) packed with morcelised bone graft is done under distraction of adjacent vertebral segments to allow compression which helps with the fusion process. This is followed by pedicle screws and rod insertion to complete the posterior construct for added stability.

The method of TLIF is similar with some exceptions. Posterolateral fusion is often not required and extensive soft tissue dissection is thus minimized. The posterior construct consisting of pedicle screws are inserted immediately after retraction of the erector spinae musculature. With a transforminal approach, only unilateral laminectomy and inferior facetectomy are required at the intended level of fusion to gain access to the intervertebral disc preserving more bony surfaces. Discectomy, end-plate preparation and insertion of cage(s) packed with morcelised bone graft are similar to PLIF. Rod insertion and final tightening under compression to achieve final posterior stabilization completes the procedure.

When comparing PLIF and TLIF, it becomes obvious that there are many similarities. Posterior approaches allow decompression of posterior spinal elements (e.g. laminotomy, laminectomy, partial facetectomy, excision of hypertrophied ligamentum flavum and discectomy) to be performed if required on other segments. [11] Posterior instrumentation can be inserted to allow immediate postoperative stability when bony fusion is still not established. [12],[13] Both PLIF and TLIF give a wider area of intervertebral bone-to-graft contact for fusion. With the interbody space bearing richer vascular supply than the posterolateral spaces, better chance of fusion is expected. [3]

The process of TLIF completely alleviates the need for posterolateral fusion in most patients. This reduces the need for lateral dissection and retraction of paraspinal musculature to expose the transverse processes and potentially reduces bleeding and post-operative pain. However, in cases of pseudoarthrosis after multiple fusion attempts, intertransverse fusion should still be a considered option. The transforaminal approach also allows access to the spinal canal more laterally, avoiding the need to expose the midline dura. This inadvertently decreases the risk of an accidental durotomy and its complications. [10] As such, TLIF has gained wide acceptance in our current practice.

The disadvantages of TLIF such as incomplete removal of intervertebral disc and vertebral end-plate, potential occult injury to exiting nerve root, however when under experienced hands are uncommon. TLIF, being a unilateral transforaminal approach, is also unable to decompress the opposite nerve root. This may require contralateral laminotomy, which is a fairly simple procedure. The advantages of TLIF and PLIF are summarized in [Table 1].

Our experience in ALIF/PLIF versus TLIF [14] in a retrospective study of 53 ALIF/PLIF patients and 111 TLIF patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease demonstrates that TLIF has a shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower complications rates (51% in ALIF/PLIF fusion; 28% in TLIF). Pseudoarthrosis, wound infection and radiculopathy were the most frequent complications in this study

In another study [15] on 52 patients with a minimum follow-up of three years, the pain relief in the visual analog scale (VAS) and the reduction of the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were significant at follow-up. There was good fusion rate of 89%. The study concluded that the TLIF technique was comparable to other interbody fusions, such as the PLIF and ALIF techniques. Also, the potential advantages of the TLIF technique included avoidance of the anterior approach, and reduction of neural complications when compared to PLIF.


   The New Procedure: MI-TLIF Top


Ever since the introduction of MI-TLIF as a new form of approach for patients with degenerative deformity of the spine, it has received widespread recognition. [16],[17] Its promising feature lies in the fact that TLIF can be performed with presumably fewer complications, faster recovery and better cosmesis.

Many surgeons describe variable forms of MI-TLIF techniques. Most involve localization of the relevant facet joint via fluoroscopic guidance; a paramidline incision and approach with retraction of erector spinae muscles through insertion of serial dilators until a self-retaining retractor is assembled. Facetectomy and annulotomy are performed as per open TLIF. This is followed by discectomy, preparation of adjacent vertebral endplates, insertion cage packed with morcelised bone graft. Fluoroscopic guidance is employed to insert guide wires and subsequently pedicle screws via the same incision ipsilaterally and stab incisions contralaterally. Finally, posterior stabilization is achieved with rods glided into the screw heads and tightened using set screws under compression.

The key differences in MI-TLIF compared with the open method include the exchange of longer skin incision with multiple small ones, less dissection of adjacent musculature and the employment of fluoroscopy to compensate for the technically more challenging limited access surgery. As such, it is only understandable for MI-TLIF to have certain potential advantages and disadvantages listed in [Table 2]. However, even with numerous studies conducted to compare open and MI-TLIF, no data has passed the scrutiny of any well designed, prospective, double blinded, randomized-controlled trials.

Several recent studies have shown the improvement of VAS and ODI scores in MI-TLIF. In a recent study [18] conducted on 40 consecutive patients who underwent MI-TLIF for symptomatic spondylolisthesis, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a mean of 35 months, the mean preoperative ODI score was 55, decreasing to a mean of 16 postoperatively. Preoperatively, the mean leg and back pain VAS scores were 65 and 52, which improved to average of 8 and 15 respectively. In another prospective study [19] of 34 patients with a follow-up duration ranging from six to 12 months, 17 (85%) out of 20 patients achieved decrease in mean ODI score from 57 to 18. The patients' VAS pain scores improved from 8.3 preoperatively to 1.4 after surgery.

Three recent published studies have also shown promising results of MI-TLIF over open TLIF comparing the length of surgery, length of stay, estimated blood loss and functional outcome. [20],[21],[22]

In the first study [20] (n=42) who underwent TLIF for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis, 21 patients underwent MI-TLIF and 21 patients underwent open TLIF. The mean follow-up was 24 months for the MI group and 34 months for the open group. The mean estimated blood loss was 194 ml for the MI-TLIF group and 505 ml for the open group. The mean length of hospital stay (LOS) was three days for the MI-TLIF group and 5.5 days for the open group. The mean modified Prolo score improved from 11 to 19 in the MI-TLIF group and from 10 to 18 in the open group. Patients in the MI-TLIF group had a shorter LOS, less estimated blood loss but there was no statistically significant difference in Prolo score improvement ( P0 =0.19).

In the second study [21] comparing 29 MI-TLIF patients and 29 open TLIF, MI-TLIF resulted in longer operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, with no difference in SF-36 scores at six months and two years. The last study [22] of 36 patients who underwent open TLIF and MI-TLIF with an average follow-up of 22 and 24 months, there was no difference in LOS between the two groups. The MI-TLIF group resulted in a significant reduction of blood loss and had a shorter length of hospital stay. No differences were observed in postoperative pain, initial analgesia consumption, VAS or ODI between the groups. However, a steeper learning curve for the surgeons was observed for the MI-TLIF group.

Due to minimal exposure during the operation, MI-TLIF is a challenge for the inexperienced spine surgeon. Restricted by the confines of the exposed operative field, laminectomy, facetectomy, discectomy and cage insertion become technically demanding. This may translate to greater risks during the operation. It has hence been argued that the term "minimal invasive" should be termed "minimal access" instead. However, it is reasonable to believe that under good hands, with less exposure and tissue dissection, there will be reduced risk of vessel and nerve injury, and faster recovery of patients.


   Conclusion Top


It is obvious that more evidence will be required to prove whether MI-TLIF can be an alternative to, or even replace open TLIF as the standard of surgical care for degenerative lumbar spinal disease. It is certain that improved technology and infrastructure support will facilitate the process. Nonetheless, considering the pros and cons each of these surgical procedures can help in the selection of the most appropriate one, which is patient-based and individualized.

 
   References Top

1.Middleton K, Fish DE. Lumbar spondylosis: Clinical presentation and treatment approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskeletal Med 2009;2:94-104.  Back to cited text no. 1      
2.Roh JS, Teng AL, Yoo JU, Davis J, Furey C, Bohlman HH. Degenerative disorders of the lumbar and cervical spine. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:255-62.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
3.Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE. Lumbar interbody fusion: State-of-the-art technical advances. J Neurosurg Spine 2004;1:24-30.  Back to cited text no. 3  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
4.Lin PM. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: Complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985;193:90-102.  Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]    
5.Briggs H, Milligan P. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg Am1944;26:125-30.  Back to cited text no. 5      
6.Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: I: Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953;10:154-68.  Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
7.Ray CD. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 1997;22:667-79.  Back to cited text no. 7  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
8.Branch CL, Branch CL Jr. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the keystone graft: Technique and results. Surg Neurol 1987;27:449-54.  Back to cited text no. 8  [PUBMED]    
9.Simmons JW. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior elements as chip grafts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985;193:85-9.  Back to cited text no. 9  [PUBMED]    
10.Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: Dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982;120:343-7.  Back to cited text no. 10  [PUBMED]    
11.Branch CL Jr. The case for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Neurosurg 1996;43:252-67.  Back to cited text no. 11  [PUBMED]    
12.Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;227:99-102.  Back to cited text no. 12  [PUBMED]    
13.Brodke DS, Dick JC, Kunz DN, McCabe R, Zdeblick TA. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine 1997;22:26-31.  Back to cited text no. 13  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
14.Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L. Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 2001;14:533-40.  Back to cited text no. 14  [PUBMED]    
15.Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 2005;14:551-8.   Back to cited text no. 15  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
16.Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006;20:E6.  Back to cited text no. 16      
17.Shen FH, Samartzis D, Khanna AJ, Anderson DG. Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusions. Orthop Clin North Am 2007;38:373-86.  Back to cited text no. 17  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
18.Park P, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: Technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow up. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E16.  Back to cited text no. 18      
19.Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 2006;20:E10.  Back to cited text no. 19      
20.Dhal SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:560-5.  Back to cited text no. 20      
21.Peng CW, Yue WM, Tan SB. Clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2007;5:61S.   Back to cited text no. 21      
22.Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:3-8.  Back to cited text no. 22      

Top
Correspondence Address:
Hwee Weng Dennis Hey
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119074
Singapore
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.62066

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Dural Traction a Possible Cause of Hemodynamic Changes During Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Jonathan M. Weimer,Martin Marinov,Rafi Avitsian
World Neurosurgery. 2017; 97: 761.e1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Comparison of peri-operative and 12-month lifestyle outcomes in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional lumbar fusion
Jagdeep Singh Virdee,Adarsh Nadig,George Anagnostopoulos,Kuriakose Joshi George
British Journal of Neurosurgery. 2017; 31(2): 167
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Invagination of intra-abdominal structures in the lumbar intervertebral disc space
Ji Na Kim,Soon Tae Kwon,Kyung Nam Ryu
Skeletal Radiology. 2016; 45(11): 1593
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 A Multicenter Comparison of Inpatient Resource Use for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery
Richard Hostin,Chessie Robinson,Michael O’Brien,Christopher Ames,Frank Schwab,Justin S. Smith,Virginie Lafage,Munish Gupta,Robert Hart,Douglas Burton,Shay Bess,Christopher Schaffrey,Ian McCarthy
SPINE. 2016; 41(7): 603
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Retrospective Comparison of Radiological and Clinical Outcomes of PLIF and TLIF Techniques in Patients Who Underwent Lumbar Spinal Posterior Stabilization
Kiyasettin Asil,Can Yaldiz
Medicine. 2016; 95(17): e3235
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 The Effects of Moxibustion on Chronic Back Pain and Activities of Daily Living in Aged
Hye Sook Ryu,Kyung Sook Park
The Korean Journal of Rehabilitation Nursing. 2015; 18(1): 38
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Acute Contralateral Radiculopathy after Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Kyoung-Min Jang,Seung-Won Park,Young-Baeg Kim,Yong-Sook Park,Taek-Kyun Nam,Young-Seok Lee
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. 2015; 58(4): 350
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Factors Influencing Health Behavior in Elderly Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain
Sukhee Park
Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing. 2015; 17(1): 20
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Intermediate Results and Complications
Hwee Weng Dennis Hey,Hwan Tak Hee
Asian Spine Journal. 2015; 9(2): 185
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Digitalized Design of Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Computer-Based Simulation and Cadaveric Study
Mingjie Yang,Cheng Zeng,Song Guo,Jie Pan,Yingchao Han,Zeqing Li,Lijun Li,Jun Tan,Paul Park
PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(8): e105646
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Long-term clinical outcomes of selective segmental transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis
Yi Zhu,Bo Wang,Huimin Wang,Zhaohui Jin,Zhenqi Zhu,Haiying Liu
ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2014; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion by Finite Element Analysis
Hao Xu,Hao Tang,Xuemei Guan,Fugui Jiang,Neng Xu,Wen Ju,Xiaodong Zhu,Xiaojian Zhang,Qiulin Zhang,Ming Li
Neurosurgery. 2013; 72: ons 21
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis
Xu, H. and Tang, H. and Guan, X. and Jiang, F. and Xu, N. and Ju, W. and Zhu, X. and Zhang, X. and Zhang, Q. and Li, M.
Neurosurgery. 2013; 72: ons21-ons26
[Pubmed]
14 Biomechanical Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With 1 or 2 Cages by Finite-Element Analysis
Hao Xu,Wen Ju,Neng Xu,Xiaojian Zhang,Xiaodong Zhu,LiFan Zhu,Xuefeng Qian,Fengbiao Wen,Weidong Wu,Fugui Jiang
Neurosurgery. 2013; 73: ons198
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Factors Influencing the Burden Felt by Main Family Caregivers of Elderly Patients with Brain and Spinal Diseases
Hee Kyung Park,Kyung Min Park
Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing. 2011; 22(4): 389
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Intradiscal Herniation of the Common Iliac Vessels: A Case Report
Myung-Won You,Chung-Min Lee,So Young Park,Ji Seon Park,Wook Jin,Kyung Nam Ryu
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. 2011; 65(4): 411
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Lawton, C.D., Smith, Z.A., Barnawi, A., Fessler, R.G.
Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences. 2011; 55(3): 259-264
[Pubmed]
18 Application of on-line analytical processing in evaluating factors influencing effect of posterior lumbar internal fixation in treatment of lumbar spinal nerve root damage
Shi, G.-D., Ouyang, Y.-P., Shi, J.-G.
Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University. 2010; 31(6): 691-693
[Pubmed]
19 Application of on-line analytical processing in evaluating factors influencing effect of posterior lumbar internal fixation in treatment of lumbar spinal nerve root damage
Guo-dong SHI,Yue-ping OUYANG,Jian-gang SHI,Lian-shun Jia,Wen YUAN
Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University. 2010; 30(6): 691
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
   
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
    Introduction
    PLIF vs. TLIF
    The New Procedur...
    Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6644    
    Printed253    
    Emailed6    
    PDF Downloaded454    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 19    

Recommend this journal