Does a high BMI affect the outcome of minimally invasive TLIF? A retrospective study of 207 patients

Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) employs small incisions and advanced techniques to minimize tissue damage while achieving similar outcomes to open surgery. MISS offers benefits such as reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower costs. This review analyzes complications associated with MISS over the last 10 years, highlighting common issues and the impact of technological advancements.

METHODS

A systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, and Cochrane databases, covering publications from January 2013 to March 2024. Keywords related to MISS and complications were used. Studies on adult patients undergoing MISS with tubular, uniportal, or biportal endoscopy, reporting intraoperative or postoperative complications, were included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and small case series were excluded. Data on MISS approach, patient demographics, and complications were extracted and reviewed by 2 independent researchers.

RESULTS

The search identified 880 studies, with 137 included after screening and exclusions. Key complications in cervical MISS were hematomas, transient nerve root palsy, and dural tears. In thoracic MISS, complications included cerebrospinal fluid leaks and durotomy. In lumbar MISS, common complications were incidental dural injuries, postoperative neuropathic conditions, and disc herniation recurrences. Complications varied by surgical approach.

CONCLUSION

MISS offers reduced anatomical disruption compared to open surgery, potentially decreasing nerve injury risk. However, complications such as nerve injuries, durotomies, and hardware misplacement still occur. Intraoperative neuromonitoring and advanced technologies like navigation can help mitigate these risks. Despite variability in complication rates, MISS remains a safe, effective alternative with ongoing advancements enhancing its outcomes.

What Preoperative Factors Are Associated With Achieving a Clinically Meaningful Improvement and Satisfaction After Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify preoperative factors associated with clinically meaningful improvement, patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment at 2 years follow-up in patients undergoing single-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a primary, single-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional spine registry. Baseline characteristics and PROMs including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS), Mental Component Score (SF-36 MCS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain, and VAS leg pain were collected preoperatively, at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years.

RESULTS

A total of 997 patients were included. Multivariate analyses showed that increasing age (OR 1.039, P < .001) and better preoperative ODI (OR .984, P = .018) were associated with achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for VAS Back. Increasing age (OR 1.032, P = .007) and better preoperative VAS Back (OR .783, P < .001) were associated with achieving MCID for VAS Leg. Lower BMI (OR .952, P = .024) and better preoperative ODI (OR .976, P < .001) were associated with achieving MCID for SF-36 PCS. Importantly, a better preoperative SF-36 MCS was associated with MCID attainment for ODI (OR 1.038, P < .001), satisfaction (OR 1.034, P < .001) and expectation fulfilment (OR 1.024, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who were older, have less preoperative disability and better preoperative mental health were significantly more likely to attain clinically meaningful improvement in PROMs and postoperative satisfaction after single-level TLIF. Identification of these factors would aid surgeons in patient selection and surgical counselling for single-level TLIF.

Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?-A Prospective Single Center Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the amount of reduction in lean muscle mass (LMM) of multifidus muscle (MFM) between conventional open Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CO-TLIF) as compared to Minimally invasive spine Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

This study was conducted between 2017 and 2020. It included 100 patients divided into two groups, 50 patients treated with CO-TLIF, 50 treated with MIS-TLIF. Only patients undergoing single level, primary lumbar fusion at L4-5 or L5-S1 level for degenerative pathologies were included. All patients were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 1-year post surgery. Measurements were performed using ImageJ image processing program.

RESULTS

Mean percentage reduction in LMM in CO-TLIF group was 45.52 ± 12.36% and MIS-TLIF group was 25.83 ± 9.64% [statistically significant (t = 8.78, P < .001)]. Mean percentage reduction in LMM on side of cage insertion was 39.63 ± 15.96% and opposite side was 31.40 ± 15.01% [statistically significant (t = 9.06, P < .001)]. Mean reduction of LMM among males was 29.38 ± 15.23% and females was 40.42 ± 12.67% [statistically significant (t = -3.95, P < .001)].We observed significant but weak degree of correlation between age and percentage reduction of LMM (r = .22, P = .028).

CONCLUSION

Mean reduction in LMM was greater in CO-TLIF group as compared to MIS-TLIF. There was greater reduction in LMM in females and on side of cage insertion. We also found greater reduction in LMM with increasing age in both groups.

Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective single-center study.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are available, but previous studies comparing lumbar fusion techniques have heterogeneous data, making interpretation challenging.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2018, data from 447 consecutive patients undergoing one/two-level lumbar fusion were analyzed. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bilateral muscle strip or Wiltse approach, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF, and posterolateral fusion only were among the surgical techniques used. Core outcomes measure index (COMI) questionnaires were distributed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively to establish patient selfreported outcome measures. Demographic data (age, gender, and body mass index [BMI]) for each patient were also collected in addition to surgical indication, previous operative history, perioperative outcomes, and complications, and whether later revision surgery was required. Pearson's chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, repeated measure mixed-effects models, and ordinal logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Postoperative COMI scores improved across all procedures compared with pre-surgery (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between different postoperative COMI scores. Significant predictors of higher postoperative COMI score included higher pretreatment COMI score (p≤0.001), previous surgery (p≤0.04), younger age (p≤0.05), higher BMI (p≤0.005), and the indications of lytic spondylolisthesis (p=0.02) and degenerative disc disease (p<0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF had a significantly shorter post-surgery stay than patients undergoing open PLIF (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

At 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between open and minimally invasive techniques. These findings suggest that the main determinant of surgical approach should be surgeon preference and training.