Diminishing Clinical Returns of Multilevel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Comparison of the short-term efficacy of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for the treatment of two-segment lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND

This study retrospectively compared short-term clinical outcomes and complications of minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MIS-TLIF)and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion(Endo-LIF))for two-segmental lumbar degenerative disease, aiming to guide spine surgeons in selecting surgical approaches.

METHODS

From January 2019 to December 2023, 30 patients were enrolled,15 in the MIS-TLIF group and 15 in the Endo-LIF group. All patients were followed up for more than 3 months after surgery and the following information was recorded: (1)surgery time, difference in hemoglobin between preoperative and postoperative, surgical costs, first time out of bed after operation, postoperative hospitalization time, postoperative complication; (2) ODI score (The Oswestry Disability Index), leg and back VAS score (Visual Analogue Scale), and lumbar vertebra JOA score (Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores); (3) MacNab score at final follow-up to assess clinical outcome, CT to evaluate lumbar fusion.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the two groups regarding operation time and cost, with the MIS-TLIF group performing significantly better. Intraoperative bleeding was considerably less in the Endo-LIF group compared to the MIS-TLIF group. However, there were no significant differences in the time of the first postoperative ambulation, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in preoperative VAS, ODI, and JOA between the two surgical groups There were no significant differences in VAS(leg), ODI, and JOA scores between the two groups before and at 1 day,7 days, 1 month, 3 months and final follow-up. However, at 1 day postoperatively, the VAS( back)score in the Endo-LIF group was lower than that in the MIS-TLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant. At the final follow-up, all patients achieved grade III and above according to the Bridwell criteria, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical groups compared to each other. According to the MacNab score at the final follow-up, the excellent rate was 80.00% in the Endo-LIF group and 73.33% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in short-term efficacy and safety between Endo-LIF and MIS-TLIF for two-segment degenerative lumbar diseases. MIS-TLIF has a shorter operative time and lower costs, while Endo-LIF causes less tissue damage, blood loss, and early postoperative pain, aiding long-term recovery. Both MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF are promising for treating two-segment lumbar degenerative disease. The choice of a surgical procedure depends on the patient's financial situation, their ability to tolerate surgery, and the surgeon's expertise.

Radiological and Clinical Outcomes comparing 2-level MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare early postoperative radiological and clinical outcomes between 2-level minimally invasive (MIS) trans-psoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

Fifty three consecutive patients undergoing 2-level lumbar interbody fusion from L3-L5 for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled. Twenty four patients underwent LLIF and 29 underwent TLIF.

RESULTS

Operative time and length of stay were similar between LLIF and TLIF (272.8 ± 82.4 vs 256.1 ± 59.4 minutes; 5.5 ± 2.8 vs 4.7 ± 3.3 days, P > .05), whereas blood loss was lower for LLIF (229.0 ± 125.6 vs 302.4 ± 97.1mls, P = .026). Neurological deficits were more common in LLIF (9 vs 3, P = .025), whereas persistent deficits were rare for both (1 vs 1, P = 1). For both groups, all patient reported outcomes visual analogue scale (VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, ODI, SF-36 physical) improved from preoperative to 2-years postoperative (P < .05), with both groups showing no significant differences in extent of improvement for any outcome. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion demonstrated superior restoration of disc height (L3-L4: 4.1 ± 2.4 vs 1.2 ± 1.9 mm, P < .001; L4-L5: 4.6 ± 2.4 vs .8 ± 2.8 mm, P < .001), foraminal height (FH) (L3-L4: 3.5 ± 3.6 vs 1.0 ± 3.6 mm, P = .014; L4-L5: 3.0 ± 3.5 vs -.1 ± 4.4 mm, P = .0080), segmental lordosis (4.1 ± 6.4 vs -2.1 ± 8.1°, P = .005), lumbar lordosis (LL) (4.1 ± 7.0 vs -2.3 ± 12.6°, P = .026) and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch (-4.1 ± 7.0 vs 2.3 ± 12.6°, P = .019) at 2-years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The superior radiological outcomes demonstrated by 2-level trans-psoas LLIF did not translate into difference in clinical outcomes compared to 2-level TLIF at the 2-years follow-up, suggesting both approaches are reasonable for 2-level lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Long-Term Reoperation Rates After Open versus Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: Five Year Follow-Up of 2130 Patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (MISS) is a growing alternative to Open Spine Surgery (OSS). The preservation of musculature and minimization of iatrogenic injury is hypothesized to decrease the need for reoperation by preserving normal anatomy. Our objective is to compare the relative long-term reoperation rates after MISS and OSS for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis compares the long-term reoperation rates after MISS and OSS. Eligible patients were adults with a primary lumbar intervention carried out between 5/1/2004 and 1/31/2014 to allow for at least 5 years of follow up. Patients without sufficient descriptive metrics or follow-up data were excluded. The primary outcome was the rate of lumbar spine reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 2130 patients met the inclusion criteria-1895 underwent OSS and 235 underwent MISS. On average and across all surgery types (decompression and decompression with fusion), 28% of OSS patients required reoperation during the minimum 5-year follow up period while only 14% of MISS patients required reoperation (P = 0.001). The MISS group was statistically identical to the OSS group in all categories except that the MISS group was on average 1.8 years older (62.25 vs. 60.45, P = 0.039) and had a higher incidence of diabetes (26% vs. 17%, P = 0.000), but had a lower average body mass index than the OSS group (28.35 vs. 29.60, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of degenerative lumbar spine disease, MISS has the potential to reduce the long-term need for reoperation when compared with OSS.

Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study

This was a retrospective study. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS). 81 patients with LDS grades 1 and 2 treated in our spinal department from January 2014 to July 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The MIS-TLIF group included 23 males and 11 females, while the TO-TLIF group included 29 males and 18 females. Follow-up points were set at 7 days, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months postoperatively and the last follow-up. Various clinical and radiological indicators were used to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety between the two procedures. 8 cases (3 in the MIS-TLIF group and 5 in the TO-TLIF group) were loss of follow-up after discharge. And the remaining 73 patients were followed up for at least 2 years. No statistically significant difference was observed in the terms of age, sex, BMI, slippage grade, and surgical segments. The MIS-TLIF group had a longer operation and fluoroscopy time compared with the TO-TLIF group. But the MIS-TLIF group was associated with less blood loss, ambulation time, hospital stay, and time of return to work. In each group, significant improvement were observed in BP-VAS, ODI and vertebral slip ratio at any time-point of follow-up when compared with the preoperative condition. When the time-point of follow-up was less than 1 year, the MIS-TLIF group had significant advantages in the BP-VAS and ODI compared with TO-TLIF group. But no significant difference was observed in the BP-VAS and ODI at either 12 month follow-up or the last follow-up. Besides, no statistical difference was detected in vertebral slip ratio at any time-point of follow-up between the two groups. Successful intervertebral bone fusion was found in all patients and no significant difference was found in the incidence of total complications. Thus, we considered that MIS-TLIF and TO-TLIF both achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy in the treatment of low-grade single-segment LDS. But MIS-TLIF appears to be a more efficacious and safe technique with reduced tissue damage, less blood loss and quicker recovery.