Ten-Year Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Atlantoaxial intra-articular cage fusion by posterior intermuscular approach for treating reducible atlantoaxial dislocation: a technique note with case series

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical feasibility of atlantoaxial intra-articular cage (AIC) fusion via intermuscular approach for treating reducible atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD).

METHODS

An analysis was conducted on the data of 10 patients who underwent C1-C2 segmental fixation and AIC fusion for AAD by unilateral intermuscular approach and contralateral open approach. Outcome assessments included Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA) and Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain (VASSNP). The duration of surgical exposure, screw insertion and cage insertion, and postoperative drainage volume were also compared between two approaches. Bone fusion was evaluated through computed tomography (CT) reconstruction. Postoperative paravertebral tissue edema was evaluated by paravertebral tissue cross-sectional area (CSA) and signal intensity on T2 weighted sequence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

The intermuscular approach exhibited a longer exposure time but lower drainage postoperatively compared to the open approach (P < 0.05). After operation, JOA scores significant improved (P < 0.05), while VASSNP scores significantly decreased (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in preoperative CSA between two approaches (P > 0.05). However, compared to the open approach, the intermuscular approach exhibited less CSA (P < 0.05) and lower T2 signal intensity on MRI postoperatively, indicating less invasive to the paravertebral tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

AIC fusion by intermuscular approach is an effective and safe technique in the treatment of reducible AAD. Intermuscular approach could reduce the postoperative drainage volume and the extent of paravertebral tissue edema compared to open approach.

Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of adjacent segmental pathology (ASP) following minimally invasive (MI) vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to identify factors linked to ASP requiring reoperation.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent MI-TLIF or open TLIF. Radiographic ASP (RASP) was evaluated using X-ray imaging to distinguish between degenerative changes, spondylolisthesis, and instability in the adjacent spinal segment. Clinical ASP (CASP) was assessed with the visual analog scale score for leg and back pain and the Oswestry disability index. Patient data were collected 1, 2, 5, and 10 years postoperatively. The timing and frequency of ASP reoperation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five years postoperatively, the RASP rate was 35.23% and 45.95% in the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups. The frequency of CASP differed significantly between the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups at 1 year postoperatively. The rates of RASP, CASP, and ASP necessitating reoperation were not significantly different 10 years postoperatively. Cranial facet violation significantly affected ASP in both groups. In the open TLIF group, preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration significantly influenced ASP.

CONCLUSION

The RASP rate at 5 years postoperatively and the CASP rate at 1 year postoperatively differed significantly between groups. There was no difference in the rate of ASP requiring reoperation. Cranial facet violation is a crucial driving factor for ASP after both surgical procedures.

Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Evolution of the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): From Open to Percutaneous to Patient-Specific

The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has seen significant evolution since its early inception, reflecting advancements in surgical techniques, patient safety, and outcomes. Originally described as an improvement over the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), the TLIF began as an open surgical procedure, that notably reduced the need for the extensive neural retractation that hindered the PLIF. In line with the broader practice of surgery, trending toward minimally invasive access, the TLIF was followed by the development of the minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF), a technique that further decreased tissue trauma and postoperative complications. Subsequent advancements, including Trans-Kambin's Triangle TLIF (percLIF) and transfacet LIF, have continued to refine surgical access, minimize surgical footprint, and reduce the risk of injury to the patient. The latest evolution, as we will describe it, the patient-specific TLIF, is a culmination of the aforementioned adaptations and incorporates advanced imaging and segmentation technologies into perioperative planning, allowing surgeons to tailor approaches based on individual patient anatomy and pathology. These developments signify a shift towards more precise methods in spine surgery. The ongoing evolution of the TLIF technique illustrates the dynamic nature of surgery and emphasizes the need for continued adaptation and refinement.

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Minimally Invasive Tlif versus Open Tlif: Clinical Effectiveness and Restoration of Working Capacity in Railway Workers

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and restoration of working capacity after MI (minimally invasive)-TLIF and O (open)-TLIF in railway workers with lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

83 patients, who were indicated for two-level lumbar decompression and fusion were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 1 (n = 44) had MI-TLIF procedure and group 2 (n = 39) had O-TLIF procedure. The functional status was assessed using SF-36, ODI and VAS for back and leg pain, preoperatively, at discharge, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. MRI and CT were obtained 1-year follow-up. The percentage of patients who returned to work at 1-year, work intensity and the time to return to work post-operatively were analyzed.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, the MI-TLIF group had significantly better ODI, VAS and SF-36 scores compared to the O-TLIF group. The postoperative MRIs revealed a statistically significantly less multifidus muscle atrophy in the MI group compared to the Open group. At 1-year follow-up, a comparable fusion ratio between MI group and Open group was recorded. After MI-TLIF procedure, depending on the workload, patients had a statistically significantly earlier return to work (P < .05) and statistically significantly higher return to work rate compared with the O-TLIF group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of two-level MI-TLIF in railway workers has made it possible to significantly improve long-term clinical results, reduce the risk of surgical complications, muscle atrophy and time to return to work compared to O-TLIF.

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF published from September 2017 to September 2022 for the treatment of LDD were retrieved. Data were extracted from preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, estimated intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, etc.

RESULT

Thirty-one studies with 3467 patients were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of the 3 procedures, Endo-LIF was superior to MIS-TLIF and OTLIF in terms of reducing EBL, LOS, time to ambulation, and VAS score of back pain. MIS-TLIF was superior to Endo-LIF in terms of ODI improvement, and OTLIF required the shortest intraoperative fluoroscopy time. There was no significant difference in operative time, complication rate, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, or JOA score among the 3 procedures.

CONCLUSION

Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF each have their own advantages and disadvantages and show similar results in many respects, except for better early outcomes achieved with the more minimally invasive procedure.

Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study describes the benefits of MIS-TLIF (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and compares them with OTLIF (open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). It compares blood loss, length of hospitalization stays (LOS), operation time, and return of the patient to the environment. A total of 250 adults (109 males and 141 females), mean age 59.5 ± 12.6, who underwent MIS-TLIF in the Neurosurgery Clinic (NSC) Ruzomberok, Slovakia, because of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), participated in this retrospective study. Data were obtained from the patients' medical records and from the standardized Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) index questionnaire. To compare ODI in our study sample, we used the Student's Paired Sample Test. To compare the MIS-TLIF and OTLIF approaches, a meta-analysis was conducted. Confidence intervals were 95% CI. The test of homogeneity (Chi-square (Q)) and the degree of heterogeneity (I² test) among the included studies were used. Statistical analyses were two-sided (α = 0.05). All monitored parameters were significantly better in MIS-TLIF group: blood loss (p < 0.001), operation time (p < 0.001), and ODI changes (p < 0.001). LOS (p < 0.042) were close to the significance level. ODI in the study sample decreased by 33.44% points after MIS-TLIF, and it significantly increased as well (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who were satisfied with the surgery they underwent was 84.8%. The study confirmed that the MIS-TLIF method is in general gentler for the patient and allows the faster regeneration of patient's health status compared to OTLIF.

Research topics and hotspot trends of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A text-mining study with machine learning

Objectives

The study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of publications concerning lumbar spondylolisthesis, as well as summarize its research topics and hotspot trends with machine-learning based text mining.

Methods

The data were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database and then analyzed in Rstudio1.3.1 and CiteSpace5.8. Annual publication production and the top-20 productive authors over time were obtained. Additionally, top-20 productive journals and top-20 influential journals were compared by spine-subspecialty or not. Similarly, top-20 productive countries/regions and top-20 influential countries/regions were compared by they were developed countries/regions or not. The collaborative relationship among countries and institutions were presented. The main topics of lumbar spondylolisthesis were classified by Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) analysis, and the hotspot trends were indicated by keywords with strongest citation bursts.

Results

Up to 2021, a total number of 4,245 articles concerning lumbar spondylolisthesis were finally included for bibliometric analysis. Spine-subspecialty journals were found to be dominant in the productivity and the impact of the field, and SPINE, EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL and JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE were the top-3 productive and the top-3 influential journals in this field. USA, Japan and China have contributed to over half of the publication productivity, but European countries seemed to publish more influential articles. It seemed that developed countries/regions tended to produce more articles and more influential articles, and international collaborations mainly occurred among USA, Europe and eastern Asia. Publications concerning surgical management was the major topic, followed by radiographic assessment and epidemiology for this field. Surgical management especially minimally invasive technique for lumbar spondylolisthesis were the recent hotspots over the past 5 years.

Conclusions

The study successfully summarized the productivity and impact of different entities, which should benefit the journal selection and pursuit of international collaboration for researcher who were interested in the field of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Additionally, the current study may encourage more researchers joining in the field and somewhat inform their research direction in the future.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5-year follow-up from the prospective multicenter Quality Outcomes Database registry

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively.

METHODS

The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values.

RESULTS

The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF, compared to open TLIF, was associated with similar 60-month ODI, ODI change, odds of reaching ODI minimum clinically important difference, NRS-BP, NRS-BP change, NRS-LP, NRS-LP change, EQ-5D, EQ-5D change, and NASS satisfaction (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). The 60-month reoperation rates did not differ significantly (MI-TLIF 5.6% vs open TLIF 11.6%, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

For symptomatic, single-level grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, but there was no difference in 60-month outcomes for disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or satisfaction between MI and open TLIF. There was no difference in cumulative reoperation rates between the two procedures. These results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, either procedure may be employed depending on patient and surgeon preferences.