Perioperative Modifications to the Open TLIF Provide Comparable Short-term Outcomes to the MIS-TLIF

Open Versus Endoscopic Approach for Thoracic Disk Herniations: Equivalent Short-Term Outcomes With Significantly Different Costs

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Open thoracic diskectomy often requires significant bone resection and fusion, whereas an endoscopic thoracic diskectomy offers a less invasive alternative. Therefore, we sought to compare one-level open vs endoscopic thoracic diskectomy regarding (1) perioperative outcomes, (2) neurological recovery, and (3) total cost.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective, cohort study using prospectively collected data of patients undergoing one-level thoracic diskectomy was undertaken from 2018 to 2023. The primary exposure variable was open vs endoscopic. The primary outcome was perioperative outcomes and neurological recovery. Secondary outcomes were total cost of care. Multivariable regression analysis controlled for age, body mass index, sex, symptom onset, disk characteristics, operative time, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of 29 patients undergoing thoracic diskectomy, 17 were open and 12 were endoscopic. Preoperative demographics, symptoms, and radiographic findings were comparable between the cohorts. Perioperatively , open surgery had significantly higher mean length of stay (4.9 ± 1.5 vs 0.0 ± 0.0 days, P < .001), median (IQR) longer operative time (342.8 [68.4] vs 141.5 [36] minutes, P < .001), and more blood loss (350 [390] vs 6.5 [20] mL; P < .001). 16 (94%) open patients required fusion vs 0 endoscopic ( P < .001). Postoperative opioid use ( P = .119), readmission ( P = .665), reoperation ( P = .553), and rate of neurological improvement ( P > .999) were similar between the 2 groups. Financially, open surgical median costs were 7x higher than endoscopic ($59 792 [$16 118] vs $8128 [$1848]; P < .001), driven by length of stay (β = $2261/night, P < .001), open surgery (β = $24 106, P < .001), and number of pedicle screws (β = $1829/screw, P = .002) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, open surgery was never cost-efficient against endoscopic surgery and excess endoscopic revision rates of 86% above open revision rates were required for break-even costs between the surgical approaches.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic thoracic diskectomy was associated with decreased length of stay, operative time, blood loss, and total cost compared with the open approach, with similar neurological outcomes. These findings may help patients and surgeons seek endoscopic approach as a less morbid and less costly alternative.

Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 112 patients were retrospectively analyzed, and were divided into an MIS-TLIF group and OPEN-TLIF group. The operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, the content of creatine kinase(CK) and complications, were recorded. VAS score and ODI index were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Bridwell grading was used to evaluate postoperative interbody fusion. Screw position was evaluated by Rao grading. Results: Compared with the OPEN-TLIF group, the MIS-TLIF group had longer operation times, more intraoperative fluoroscopy times, but shorter postoperative bed times (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the distribution of type A screws, but the type B screw in the MIS-TLIF group was higher (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The postoperative quality of life score and radiological outcomes of the two types of surgery in two-level lumbar degenerative diseases was similar, and there was no significant difference in muscle injury and complications, but the operation time and intraoperative radiation exposurewere higher than in the OPEN-TLIF group, and the pedicle screws were more likely to deviate laterally out of the vertebral body. Therefore, OPEN-TLIF is recommended for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases of two segments.

Contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws combined with unilateral MIS-TLIF vs. open TLIF in the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases: A five years retrospective study and finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, feasibility and biomechanical stability of contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws (Freehand MIPS) combined with unilateral minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) (smile-face surgery) and open TLIF for the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).

METHODS

From January 2013 to January 2016, clinical data of multi-segmental (2- or 3-level) LDDs receiving smile-face surgery or open TLIF were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The back and leg pain VAS and ODI were used to assess clinical outcomes preoperatively and postoperatively. The MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the satisfaction of patient. The disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis angle (SLA) were measured before and after surgery. We used patient's CT data to establish the finite element model of smile-face surgery and open TLIF, and analyze biomechanical stability of two methods.

RESULTS

Smile-face surgery group showed shorter operation time, shorter incision, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay than open TLIF (P < 0.05). The back VAS in smile-face surgery group was significantly lower than that in open TLIF immediately and 3 months after surgery, and no significant difference was observed 1 year, 2 years and 5 years after surgery. There was no significant difference in the leg pain VAS and ODI between both groups after surgery. No significant difference was observed between two groups in the DH, LL and SLA. At 5-year follow-up, grade I or II fusion was achieved in 99.00% (100/101) segments of smile-face surgery group and 97.67% (84/86) segments of open TLIF group according to Bridwell system. The complication rate of open TLIF was higher than that of smile-face surgery (24.32% vs. 0%, P < 0.01). After verification, the established finite element model can accurately simulate the biological structure of lumbar spine and there was no significant difference in biomechanical stability between two methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Smile-face surgery has some advantages over open TLIF including smaller aggression, less blood loss, and lower cost, indicating that it is a good choice of treatment for multi-segmental LDDs. Both methods can achieve good biomechanical stability.

Application and thinking of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases

Background

This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

The clinical data of 55 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated at our hospital from January 2018 to January 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Of the 55 patients, 35 who underwent MIS-TLIF were included in the MIS-TLIF group, and 20 who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were included in the PLIF group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative drainage, postoperative landing time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative interbody fusion rate, and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

The patients in both groups were followed-up for at least 1.5 years (range, 18–30 months; with an average of 27.5±2.6 months). There was no significant difference in the operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, VAS score for low back and leg pain, ODI score, interbody fusion rate, hospitalization expenses, and complication rate between the two groups (P>0.05). One patient had nail failure in the MIS-TLIF group, 1 patient in each group had nerve root irritation, and 1 patient in each group had superficial incision infection and local suture dehiscence. The postoperative drainage volume, postoperative landing time, and postoperative hospital stay of the MIS-TLIF group were less than those of the PLIF group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Compared to PLIF, the use of MIS-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases has a number of advantages, including more complete intraoperative hemostasis, less postoperative drainage, earlier landing, and faster discharge, and also significantly improves postoperative lumbar discomfort.