How Does Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Influence Lumbar Radiologic Parameters?

Endplate weakening during cage bed preparation significantly reduces endplate load capacity

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of endplate weakness prior to PLIF or TLIF cage implantation and compare it to the opposite intact endplate of the same vertebral body. In addition, the influence of bone quality on endplate resistance was investigated.

METHODS

Twenty-two human lumbar vertebrae were tested in a ramp-to-failure test. One endplate of each vertebral body was tested intact and the other after weakening with a rasp (over an area of 200 mm2). Either a TLIF or PLIF cage was then placed and the compression load was applied across the cage until failure of the endplate. Failure was defined as the first local maximum of the force measurement. Bone quality was assessed by determining the Hounsfield units (HU) on CT images.

RESULTS

With an intact endplate and a TLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1276.3N (693.1-1980.6N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 15% (0-23%). With an intact endplate and a PLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1057.2N (701.2-1735.5N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 36.6% (7-47.9%). Bone quality correlated linearly with the force at which endplate failure occurred. Intact and weakened endplates showed a strong positive correlation: intact-TLIF: r = 0.964, slope of the regression line (slope) = 11.8, p < 0.001; intact-PLIF: r = 0.909, slope = 11.2, p = 5.5E-05; weakened-TLIF: r = 0.973, slope = 12.5, p < 0.001; weakened-PLIF: r = 0.836, slope = 6, p = 0.003.

CONCLUSION

Weakening of the endplate during cage bed preparation significantly reduces the resistance of the endplate to subsidence to failure: endplate load capacity is reduced by 15% with TLIF and 37% with PLIF. Bone quality correlates with the force at which endplate failure occurs.

Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) are well-established procedures for spinal fusion. However, little is known about load sharing between cage, dorsal construct, and biological tissue within the instrumented lumbar spine.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to quantify the forces acting on cages under axial compression force with and without posterior instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical cadaveric study.

METHODS

Ten lumbar spinal segments were tested under uniaxial compression using load cell instrumented intervertebral cages. The force was increased in 100N increments to 1000N or a force greater than 500N on one load cell. Each specimen was tested after unilateral PLIF (uPLIF), bilateral PLIF (bPLIF) and TLIF each with/without posterior instrumentation. Dorsal instrumentation was performed with 55N of compression per side.

RESULTS

Cage insertion resulted in median cage preloads of 16N, 29N and 35N for uPLIF, bPLIF, and TLIF. The addition of compressed dorsal instrumentation increased the median preload to 224N, 328N, and 317N, respectively. With posterior instrumentation, the percentage of the external load acting on the intervertebral cage was less than 25% at 100N (uPLIF: 14.2%; bPLIF: 16%; TLIF: 11%), less than 45% at 500N (uPLIF: 31.8%; bPLIF: 41.1%; TLIF: 37.9%) and less than 50% at 1000N (uPLIF: 40.3%; bPLIF: 49.7%; TLIF: 43.4%). Without posterior instrumentation, the percentage of external load on the cages was significantly higher with values above 50% at 100N (uPLIF: 55.6%; bPLIF: 75.5%; TLIF: 66.8%), 500N (uPLIF: 71.7%; bPLIF: 79.2%; TLIF: 65.4%), and 1000N external load (uPLIF: 73%; bPLIF: 80.5%; TLIF: 66.1%). For absolute loads, preloads and external loads must be added together.

CONCLUSIONS

Without posterior instrumentation, the intervertebral cages absorb more than 50% of the axial load and the load distribution is largely independent of the loading amplitude. With posterior instrumentation, the external load acting on the cages is significantly lower and the load distribution becomes load amplitude dependent, with a higher proportion of the load transferred by the cages at high loads. The bPLIF cages tend to absorb more force than the other two cage configurations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cage instrumentation allows some of the compression force to be transmitted through the cage to the screws below, better distributing and reducing the overall force on the pedicle screws at the end of the construct and on the rods.

Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of patients with severe stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), focusing on dural tears rates, other complications, clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

This cohort study included patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (Shizas C or D) and lumbar DS who underwent MIDLIF or MIS-TLIF. Propensity score matching was done and the groups were compared regarding surgery time, length of stay, perioperative complications, clinical results and radiological outcomes, at 1 year of follow-up.

RESULTS

The study included initially 80 patients, and 72 patients after matching, 36 in each group. Six patients had dural tears, four in the MIDLIF group and two in the MIS-TLIF group (p = 0.67). General complication rates and reoperations were not significantly different between the groups. Good or excellent clinical was achieved in 75% of the MIDLIF patients and 72% of the MIS-TLIF patients (p = 0.91). Radiological parameters showed small but statistically significant (p < 0.01) improvements after surgery, particularly in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis (2.0° and 1.7°), while pelvic tilt and global tilt decreased (1.6° and 2.6°). These findings were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms that MIDLIF is a safe and reliable minimally invasive alternative for lumbar interbody fusion in DS, even in patients with severe stenosis and previous spine surgery. It seems to offer similar results to MIS-TLIF regarding clinical results, radiological outcomes and complications.

Predictors of Postoperative Segmental and Overall Lumbar Lordosis in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Consecutive Case Series

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Case-Series.

OBJECTIVES

Due to heterogeneity in previous studies, the effect of MI-TLIF on postoperative segmental lordosis (SL) and lumbar lordosis (LL) remains unclear. Therefore, we aim to identify radiographic factors associated with lordosis after surgery in a homogenous series of MI-TLIF patients.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review identified consecutive patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis from 2015-2020. All surgeries underwent unilateral facetectomies and a contralateral facet release with expandable interbody cages. PROs included the ODI and NRS-BP for low-back pain. Radiographic measures included SL, disc height, percent spondylolisthesis, cage positioning, LL, PI-LL mismatch, sacral-slope, and pelvic-tilt. Surgeries were considered "lordosing" if the change in postoperative SL was ≥ +4° and "kyphosing" if ≤ -4°. Predictors of change in SL/LL were evaluated using Pearson's correlation and multivariable regression.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients with an average follow-up of 22.5 (range 12-61) months were included. Patients experienced significant improvements in ODI (29% ± 22% improvement, P < .001) and NRS-BP (3.3 ± 3 point improvement, P < .001). There was a significant increase in mean SL (Δ3.43° ± 4.37°, P < .001) while LL (Δ0.17° ± 6.98°, P > .05) remained stable. Thirty-eight (52%) patients experienced lordosing MI-TLIFs, compared to 4 (5%) kyphosing and 31 (43%) neutral MI-TLIFs. A lower preoperative SL and more anterior cage placement were associated with the greatest improvement in SL (β = -.45° P = .001, β = 15.06° P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the majority of patients experienced lordosing or neutral MI-TLIFs (n = 69, 95%). Preoperative radiographic alignment and anterior cage placement were significantly associated with target SL following MI-TLIF.

Indirect Effects on Adjacent Segments After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare radiographic parameters at adjacent segments before and after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and assess relationships of radiographic changes between adjacent segments and fused level.

METHODS

Study participants included 44 patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 level. Radiographic parameters at adjacent segments (L3-4 and L5-S1) and clinical parameters were reviewed.

RESULTS

Postoperative dural sac area significantly increased in upper (mean change 8.05 mm2, P < 0.001) and lower (14.08 mm2, P < 0.001) adjacent segments. Significant increases in SAPD were seen in upper (0.85 mm, P < 0.001) and lower (0.66 mm, P < 0.001) adjacent segments. Ligamentum flavum thickness significantly decreased in lower adjacent segments (-0.37 mm, P = 0.006). For every 1-mm increase in fused level disc height, lower SAPD increased 0.22 mm (P = 0.04), and lower segmental angle increased 0.91° (P = 0.04). For every 1° increase in fused level segmental angle, lower dural sac area increased 1.25 mm2 (P = 0.03), and lower SAPD increased 0.12 mm (P = 0.003). The 6- and 12-month postoperative visual analog scale back and leg scores significantly decreased compared with preoperatively (back: mean change -5.98 and -6.05, P < 0.001; leg: -6.86 and -6.89, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the symptomatic index level does not worsen canal dimension of asymptomatic adjacent segments during short-term follow-up. It might be possible to improve canal dimension at adjacent segments by changing disc height or lordosis at the fused level via adjusting size and position of the interbody cage.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers

Background

The goal of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is to restore and maintain disc height and lordosis until arthrodesis occurs, while minimizing muscle disruption and improving recovery time. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes in patients treated with an articulating expandable spacer in MI TLIF to more traditional static spacers.

Methods

This was a multi-site, multi-surgeon, Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective clinical study from a prospectively collected database. It included 48 patients with a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level from L2 to S1 with or without Grade 1 spondylolisthesis who underwent MI TLIF using either an articulating expandable or static interbody spacer. Twenty-seven patients were in the banana-shaped articulating expandable interbody spacer (ALTERA^®, Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) group, while 21 patients were in the static interbody spacer group. Both groups had supplemental posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation. Radiographic records were assessed for disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up.

Results

The articulating expandable spacer group displayed significantly greater improvement in anterior disc height from baseline compared to the static spacer group at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.6 mm (79%), 2.8 mm (92%), 3.4 mm (105%), and 3.8 mm (139%), respectively (P<0.05). Mean increases in posterior disc height were significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group by 1.2 mm (65%) and 1.7 mm (104%) at 6 months and final follow-up, respectively (P<0.05). Articulating expandable spacers produced significantly greater average improvement by 4.0 mm in neuroforaminal height from baseline to final follow-up compared to static spacers (P<0.05). Increases in intervertebral angle from baseline were significantly greater in the expandable group than in the static group at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.5°, 2.8°, and 3.1°, respectively (P<0.05). The articulating expandable spacer group resulted in significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis from baseline to 3 and 6 months than the static spacer group by 4.4° and 4.0°, respectively (P<0.05).

Conclusions

MI TLIF with articulating expandable interbody spacers provides significant restoration and maintenance of disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis compared to static spacers in this comparative cohort. Long-term clinical outcomes are needed to correlate with these radiographic improvements.

Is Unilateral Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Sufficient in Patients with Claudication? A Comparative Matched Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical and radiologic outcomes between bilateral decompression using the over-the-top technique (group 1) and unilateral decompression (group 2) in patients with claudication who underwent minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

We enrolled patients with claudication who underwent MIS-TLIF from January 2017 to June 2019. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), walking distance, and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. Preoperative and 3-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessed changes in canal cross-sectional area, foraminal height, and lateral recess area.

RESULTS

Sixty-five consecutive patients with ≥1 year of follow-up were enrolled. VAS scores and ODI were not significantly different between groups (VAS and ODI, respectively, at 1 month follow-up, P = 0.62 and 0.88; 3 months follow-up, P = 0.96 and 0.53; 6 months follow-up, P = 0.10 and 0.85; and 12 months follow-up, P = 0.10 and 0.66). Operative time and blood loss between groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.43 and P = 0.55). There was also no difference in the length of hospital stay (P = 0.24). Canal dimensions increased in each group without significant differences between groups (cross-sectional area, P = 0.92; foraminal height [approach and contralateral side, respectively], P = 0.62 and 0.66; and lateral recess area [approach and contralateral side, respectively], P = 0.68 and 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

A unilateral approach with ipsilateral side direct decompression and contralateral indirect decompression in MIS-TLIF is sufficient for early clinical improvement in patients with claudication.

Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

Potential advantages of using expandable versus static cages during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are not fully established. The authors aimed to compare the long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static TLIF cages.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 1- and 2-level TLIFs over a 10-year period with expandable and static cages was performed at the University of California, San Francisco. Patients with posterior column osteotomy (PCO) were subdivided. Fusion assessment, cage subsidence, anterior and posterior disc height, foraminal dimensions, pelvic incidence (PI), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were assessed.

RESULTS

A consecutive series of 178 patients (with a total of 210 levels) who underwent TLIF using either static (148 levels) or expandable cages (62 levels) was reviewed. The mean patient age was 60.3 ± 11.5 years and 62.8 ± 14.1 years for the static and expandable cage groups, respectively. The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 29.4 months for the static cage group and 27.6 ± 14.1 months for the expandable cage group. Within the 1-level TLIF group, the SL and PI-LL improved with statistical significance regardless of whether PCO was performed; however, the static group with PCOs also had statistically significant improvement in LL and SVA. The expandable cage with PCO subgroup had significant improvement in SL only. All of the foraminal parameters improved with statistical significance, regardless of the type of cages used; however, the expandable cage group had greater improvement in disc height restoration. The incidence of cage subsidence was higher in the expandable group (19.7% vs 5.4%, p = 0.0017). Within the expandable group, the unilateral facetectomy-only subgroup had a 5.6 times higher subsidence rate than the PCO subgroup (26.8% vs 4.8%, p = 0.04). Four expandable cages collapsed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Expandable TLIF cages may initially restore disc height better than static cages, but they also have higher rates of subsidence. Unilateral facetectomy alone may result in more subsidence with expandable cages than using bilateral PCO, potentially because of insufficient facet release. Although expandable cages may have more power to induce lordosis and restore disc height than static cages, subsidence and endplate violation may negate any significant gains compared to static cages.

Transfacet Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Interbody Device-Part II: Consecutive Case Series

BACKGROUND

Advances in operative techniques and instrumentation technology have evolved to maximize patient outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). The transfacet MIS-TLIF is a modified approach to the standard MIS-TLIF that leverages a bony working corridor to access the disc space for discectomy and interbody device placement.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical and radiographic results following transfacet MIS-TLIF using an expandable interbody device.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent transfacet MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Patient-reported outcome measures for pain and disability were assessed. Sagittal lumbar segmental parameters and regional lumbopelvic parameters were assessed on upright lateral radiographs obtained preoperatively and during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (61.8% male) underwent transfacet MIS-TLIF at 74 levels. The mean age was 63.4 yr and the mean follow-up 15.2 mo. Patients experienced significant short- and long-term postoperative improvements on the numeric rating scale for low back pain (-2.3/10) and Oswestry Disability Index (-12.0/50). Transfacet MIS-TLIF was associated with an immediate and sustained reduction of spondylolisthesis, and an increase in index-level disc height (+0.71 cm), foraminal height (+0.28 cm), and segmental lordosis (+6.83°). Patients with preoperative hypolordosis (<40°) experienced significant increases in segmental (+9.10°) and overall lumbar lordosis (+8.65°). Pelvic parameters were not significantly changed, regardless of preoperative alignment. Device subsidence was observed in 6/74 (8.1%) levels, and fusion in 50/53 (94.3%) levels after 12 mo.

CONCLUSION

Transfacet MIS-TLIF was associated with clinical improvements and restoration of radiographic sagittal segmental parameters. Regional alignment correction was observed among patients with hypolordosis at baseline.

Distinct fusion intersegmental parameters regarding local sagittal balance provide similar clinical outcomes: a comparative study of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background

Most contemporary studies suggested that intersegmental parameters including disc height and local lordosis contribute to the sagittal balance of fused lumbar. Although similar clinical outcomes following MIS- and Open-TLIF were reported essentially at the early postoperative time, the comparison of local balance variables after these two different techniques was lack. The radiological differences maybe not relevant to the postoperative efficacy at an earlier post-operation stage. But during the long-term follow-up, the complications with regards to the sagittal imbalance might occur due to the distinct biomechanical properties of fusion level after MIS- and Open-TLIF.

Methods

The patients who underwent a single-level MIS- and Open-TLIF were reviewed retrospectively. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of the fusion segment were measured using recognition technical fluoroscopy. The mean disc height (MDH) was calculated by (ADH + PDH)/2. The relative DH was normalized by the anterior height of the upper vertebrae. The body mass index (BMI), the pain score of low back and leg visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), estimated blood loss, and hospital stay length was collected.

Results

A total of 88 patients undergoing a single-level TLIF (MIS and Open) were included. The pre- and post-operative ADH, PDH, MDH, and SL of MIS-TLIF group were 1.57 ± 0.33 cm, 0.79 ± 0.20 cm, 1.18 ± 0.21 cm, 7.36 ± 3.07 and 1.63 ± 0.30 cm, 1.02 ± 0.28 cm, 1.32 ± 0.24 cm, 10.24 ± 4.79 respectively. Whereas, the pre- and post-operative ADH, PDH, MDH, and SL of Open-TLIF group were 1.61 ± 0.40 cm, 0.77 ± 0.21 cm, 1.19 ± 0.24 cm, 9.05 ± 5.48 and 1.81 ± 0.33 cm, 0.98 ± 0.24 cm, 1.39 ± 0.24 cm, 12.34 ± 4,74 respectively. MIS- and Open-TLIF group showed no significant differences in low back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI both in pre-operation and post-operation (P > 0.05). The estimated blood loss and hospital stay length in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the Open-TLIF group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

MIS- and Open-TLIF provided similar clinical outcomes as the respect of low back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI. MIS-TLIF significantly reduced the blood loss and length of hospital stay though. The intervertebral parameters of DH and SL were both increased significantly, Open-TLIF group presented better sagittal balance in term of ADH and SL variables. The contrast investigation of intersegmental parameters may help the surgeons to figure out the further advantages of MIS-TLIF technique, and then better manage the rehabilitation and prevent the reoperation.

[Comparison of intervertebral height and lordosis of fusion segment between open- and minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the restoration of intervertebral height and lordosis of fusion segment after open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Open-TLIF) and minimally invasive-TLIF (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

Between January 2013 and February 2016, patients who treated with TLIF due to lumbar degenerative diseases and met the selection criteria were selected as the study objects. Among them, 41 patients were treated with open-TLIF (Open-TLIF group), 34 patients were treated with MIS-TLIF (MIS-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, disease type, disease duration, pathological segment, and other general data. The intraoperative bleeding volume, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of waist and leg, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded before and after operation. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (ADH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of fusion segment were measured by X-ray film before and at 6 months after operation. The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between pre- and post-operation were calculated.

RESULTS

The intraoperative bleeding volume and hospital stay in Open-TLIF group were significantly higher than those in MIS-TLIF group ( t=14.619, P=0.000; t=10.021, P=0.000). All incisions healed by first intention without early complications. All patients were followed up 6-24 months (mean, 12.6 months) in Open-TLIF group and 6-24 months (mean, 11.5 months) in MIS-TLIF group. The preoperative VAS scores of waist and leg and ODI of the two groups significantly improved ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI between the two groups before operation and at 2 weeks and 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). Imaging examination showed the good intervertebral fusion. There was no significant difference in ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups were not significant ( P>0.05). The ADH, PDH, and SL after operation significantly increased in the two groups ( P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF show similar effectiveness and radiological change in the treatment of single lumbar degenerative diseases and the improved intervertebral height and lordosis, but MIS-TLIF can significantly reduce hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss.

A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess complications after minimally invasive spinal surgeries including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) by reviewing the most recent literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current literature demonstrates that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in spine has improved clinical outcomes and reduced complications when compared with open spinal procedures. Recent studies describing MI-TLIF primarily for degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, and vertebral canal stenosis cite over 89 discrete complications, with the most common being radiculitis (ranging from 2.8 to 57.1%), screw malposition (0.3-12.7%), and incidental durotomy (0.3-8.6%). Minimally invasive spine surgery has a distinct set of complications in comparison with other spinal procedures. These complications vary based on the exact MIS procedure and indication. The most frequently documented MI-TLIF complications in current published literature were radiculitis, screw malposition, and incidental durotomy.