Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Comparison of the total and hidden blood loss in patients undergoing single-level open and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare total blood loss (TBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL) in patients undergoing single-level open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).

METHODS

A total of 53 patients who underwent ULIF and 53 patients who underwent O-TLIF from March 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The Nadler's formula was employed to estimate the patient's blood volume (PBV), Gross's formula to estimate TBL, and Sehat's formula to estimate HBL. The obtained data were then analyzed with independent t test, chi-squared test, and analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

TBL and measured blood loss (MBL) in ULIF group (326.86 ± 223.45 ml, 99.00 ± 72.81 ml) was significantly lower than O-TLIF group (427.97 ± 280.52 ml, 270.66 ± 102.34 ml). Nevertheless, the HBL in ULIF group was higher than that in O-TLIF group (227.86 ± 221.75 ml vs 157.31 ± 268.08 ml), however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.143). The HBL was 69.71 ± 23.72% of TBL in ULIF group and 36.76 ± 18.79% of TBL in O-TLIF group. Patients in ULIF group had lower TBL and MBL, shorter duration of drainage, lower postoperative anemia, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those in O-TLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative HBL should not be neglected in patients undergoing ULIF or O-TILF, as it accounts for a large percentage of TBL in both groups. ULIF is associated with lower TBL and MBL, postoperative anemia, shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with O-TLIF.

Retrospective Case Control Study: Clinical and Computer Tomographic Fusion and Subsidence Evaluation for Single Level Uniportal Endoscopic Posterolateral Approach Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Microscopic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of difference in clinical and computer tomographic outcomes between the 2 cohorts.

METHODS

Computer tomographic evaluation by Bridwell's grade, Kim's stage, Kim's subsidence grade and clinical evaluation by VAS, ODI and McNab's criteria on both cohorts.

RESULTS

33 levels of Endo-TLIF and 22 levels of TLIF were included, with a mean follow up of 14.3 (10-24) and 22.9 (13-30) months respectively. Both Endo-TLIF and TLIF achieved significant improvement of pain and ODI at post-operative 4 week, 3 months and at final follow up with VAS 4.39 ± 0.92, 5.27 ± 1.16 and 5.73 ± 1.21in Endo-TLIF and 4.55 ± 1.16, 5.05 ± 1.11 and 5.50 ± 1.20 in TLIF respectively and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and final follow up were 43.15 ± 6.57, 49.27 ± 8.24 and 51.73 ± 9.09 in Endo-TLIF and 41.73 ± 7.98, 46.18± 8.46 and 49.09 ± 8.98 in TLIF respectively, P < 0.05. Compared to TLIF, Endo-TLIF achieved better VAS with 0.727 ± 0.235 at 3 months and 0.727 ± 0.252 at final follow up and better ODI with 3.88 ± 1.50 at 3months and 3.42 ± 1.63 at final follow up, P < 0.05. At 6 months radiological evaluation comparison of the Endo-TLIF and TLIF showed significant with more favorable fusion rate in Endo-TLIF of -0.61 ± 0.12 at 6 months and -0.49 ± 0.12 at 1 year in Bridwell's grading and 0.70 ± 0.15 at 6 months and 0.56 ± 0.14 at 1 year in Kim's stage.There is less subsidence of 0.606 ± 0.18 at 6 months and -0.561 ± 0.20 at 1 year of Kim's subsidence grade, P < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Application of single level uniportal endoscopic posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved better clinical outcomes and fusion rate with less subsidence than microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in mid-term evaluation for our cohorts of patients.

Intraoperative Endplate Injury Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence, distribution characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of intraoperative endplate injury following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

Patients who underwent single-level TLIF from January 2018 to December 2020 were included. The patients were separated into endplate injury group (EI group) and no endplate injury group (non-EI group) by postoperative computed tomography scanning immediately. All patients' demographic, clinical, and radiographic parameters were analysed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS

576 patients were enrolled in this study. The rates of endplate injury were 19.6% (113 of 576) of patients and 9.9% (114 of 1152) of endplates. The rate of superior endplate injury was significantly higher than that of inferior endplate injury. The results illustrated that older age, lower disc height index (DHI), and taller cage height were independent risk factors for intraoperative endplate injury. The postoperative drain output, total blood loss, postoperative duration of drainage tube, and postoperative hospital stay in EI group were significantly more than those in non-EI group. There were no statistical differences in ODI and VAS scores at the same time point between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of endplate injury were 19.6% of patients and 9.9% of endplates. The superior endplates are more susceptible to injury than inferior endplates. Older age, lower DHI, and taller cage height were independent risk factors for intraoperative endplate injury. Clinical outcomes were not affected by intraoperative endplate injury during early postoperative follow-up.

Evaluation of Two Methods (Inside-Out/Outside-In) Inferior Articular Process Resection for Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note

Objective: There is limited literature comparing the uniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion outside-in approach (ETLIF (O)) with the inside-out approach (ETLIF (I)). Methods: Radiological evaluation was performed on disc height restoration and coronal wedging angle, and operation time (inferior articular process resection time/total operation time) and clinical evaluation were made. Result: 48 cases of inside-out and 38 cases of outside-in cases were included. Compared to inside-out, the outside-in approach had significantly less operative time required to resect inferior articular process: 36.55 ± 10.37, and total operative time: 87.45 ± 20.14 min compared to 49.83 ± 23.97 and 102.56 ± 36.53 min, respectively, for the inside-out approach, p < 0.05. Compared to the preoperative state, both cohorts achieved significant improvement of VAS and ODI at post-operative 1 week, 3 months and at final follow up. Both cohorts achieved statistically significant increased disc height with 5.00 ± 2.87 mm, 5.49 ± 2.33 mm and statistically significant improvement in coronal wedge angle with 1.76 ± 1.63°, 3.24 ± 2.92° in the inside-out and outside-in approaches respectively. Conclusions: Complete removal of inferior articular process is the key part of endoscopic fusion with two methods that can be applied: an inside-out approach or an outside-in approach. Comparing both techniques, the outside-in approach has a shorter operative time required for inferior articular process resection and total length of operation with similar good clinical and radiological outcomes.