Is Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Superior to Traditional Open Technique?

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes

Objective: To describe the surgical techniques and the treatment outcomes of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) using double cages.Methods: This study included 89 patients with 114 fusion segments between July 2019 and May 2021. One pure polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage and 1 composite titanium-PEEK cage were used for interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine 1 year postoperatively was used to evaluate the Bridwell interbody fusion grades.Results: There were significant improvement in VAS for lower back pain from 5.2 ± 3.1 to 1.7 ± 2.1, VAS for leg pain from 6.3 ± 2.5 to 1.7 ± 2.0, ODI from 46.7 ± 17.0 to 12.7 ± 16.1, and JOA score from 15.6 ± 6.3 to 26.4 ± 3.2. The p-values were all < 0.001. The average hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.1 days. The CT studies available for 60 fusion segments showed successful fusion (Bridwell grade I or grade II) in 56 segments (93.3%). Significant cage subsidence of more than 2 mm was only noted in 3 segments (5.0%). Complications included 1 dural tear, 2 pedicle screws malposition, and 2 epidural hematomas, in which 2 patients required reoperations.Conclusion: BETLIF with double cages provided good neural decompression and a sound environment for interbody fusion with a big cage footprint, a large amount of bone graft, endplate preservation, and segmental stability.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with microscopic tubular technique is an established surgical procedure with several potential advantages, including decreased surgical-related morbidity, reduced length of hospital stay, and accelerated early rehabilitation. A recently introduced biportal endoscopic technique for spine surgery presents familiar surgical anatomy and can be conducted using a conventional approach with a minimal footprint; it is also applicable to TLIF.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of biportal endoscopic technique transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and microscopic tubular technique transforaminal lumbar interbody (MT-TLIF) in patients with single- or two-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred two participants with neurogenic intermittent claudication or lumbar radiculopathy with single- or two-level lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) score for the back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Short Form-36 health survey Questionnaire (SF-36). Demographic data, operative data (total operation time, estimated blood loss, amount of surgical drain, postoperative transfusion, and length of hospital stay), and laboratory results (plasma hemoglobin, serum creatine phosphokinase, and C-reactive protein) were also evaluated. The fusion rate was assessed using the Bridwell interbody fusion grading system. Postoperative complications were also noted.

METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups: group A (BE-TLIF) and group B (MT-TLIF). The clinical outcomes, including VAS-Back and VAS-Leg, ODI, and SF-36 scores, were evaluated at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. Differences in demographics, operative data, and the laboratory and radiological results were assessed between the two groups. The fusion rate was assessed using standard standing lumbar radiographs and computed tomography scans conducted 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were analyzed in this study, 47 from group A and 32 from group B. Demographic and operative data were comparable for both the groups. The VAS-Back and SF-36 scores were more significantly improved in group A than in group B at 1 month after surgery. However, there were no significant differences between groups for the mean VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, ODI, and SF-36 scores at 1year after the surgery. Although the total operation time was significantly longer in group A, the estimated blood loss and the amount of surgical drainage was significantly higher in group B (p < .001). There were no between-group differences for the fusion rate and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Both BE-TLIF and MT-TLIF provided equivalent and favorable clinical outcomes and fusion rates. Further large-scale, randomized, controlled trials with long-term follow-ups are warranted.

Lumbar Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

This was a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacies of the 5 most commonly used procedures for spondylolisthesis in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

Lumbar fusion procedures are the backbone for the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. However, the current evidence has only considered head-to-head comparisons of different fusion procedures and failed to definitively favor one fusion procedure over another.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects model was used, and radiographic fusion and complications were assessed by risk ratio with a corresponding 95% credible interval; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed by mean difference and 95% credible interval. Furthermore, with respect to each endpoint, ranking probabilities for each fusion procedure were evaluated using the value of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

In all, 12 studies were identified. Significant differences in associated complications were found between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MTLIF) and each of the other 4 fusion procedures. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve results suggested that for the most effective radiographic fusion, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) had the maximum probability of being successful (76.6%), followed by MTLIF (70.4%) and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (OPLIF, 48.7%). In terms of ODI scores, OTLIF might be the best intervention (70.5%), followed by MTLIF (68.8%) and then OPLIF (44.0%). However, MTLIF is ranked the safest (99.8%) regarding associated complications, followed sequentially by OTLIF (57.1%) and posterolateral fusion (30.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF for spondylolisthesis was found to be the more efficient procedure in terms of radiographic fusion and ODI scores. Importantly, MTLIF is most likely to have a lower associated complication rate compared with other fusion procedures.