Decompression of Lumbar Central Spinal Canal Stenosis Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Is Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Superior to Endoscopic Spine Surgery in Postoperative Radiologic Outcomes of Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

 Minimally invasive spinal surgery (ESS) are both well-established surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis; however, there is limited literature comparing the efficacy of the two techniques with respect to radiologic decompression data.

METHODS

 In this review, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases were systematically searched from inception until July 2022 for studies that reported the radiologic outcomes of endoscopic and minimally invasive approaches for decompressive spinal surgery, namely, the spinal canal area, neural foraminal area, and neural foraminal heights.

RESULTS

 Of the 378 articles initially retrieved using MeSH and keyword search, 9 studies reporting preoperative and postoperative spinal areas and foraminal areas and heights were finally included in our review. Of the total 581 patients, 391 (67.30%) underwent MISS and 190 (32.70%) underwent ESS. The weighted mean difference between the spinal canal diameter in pre- and postoperative conditions was 56.64 ± 7.11 and 79.52 ± 21.31 mm2 in the MISS and ESS groups, respectively. ESS was also associated with a higher mean difference in the foraminal area postoperatively (72 ± 1 vs. 35.81 ± 11.3 mm2 in the MISS and ESS groups, respectively), but it was comparable to MISS in terms of the foraminal height (0.32 ± 0.037 vs. 0.29 ± 0.03 cm in the MISS and endoscopic groups, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

 Compared with MISS, ESS was associated with improved radiologic parameters, including spinal canal area and neural foraminal area in the lumbar spinal segments. Both techniques led to the same endpoint of neural decompression when starting with a more severe compression. However, the present data do not allow the correlation of the radiographic results with the related clinical outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare perioperative/postoperative clinical outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in patients presenting for revision surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective database was reviewed for procedures between November 2005 and December 2021. Revision MIS-TLIF/ALIFs were included, whereas primary fusions or diagnosis of infection/malignancy/trauma were excluded. Patients were grouped into MIS-TLIF/ALIF cohorts. Preoperatively/postoperatively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Short-Form 12-Item Survey Mental/Physical Composite Scores.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were eligible, with 84 patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort. The presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and central stenosis, narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0/1, and postoperative urinary retention rates was greater in the MIS-TLIF cohort (P ≤ 0.036, all). Preoperative PROMs between cohorts did not significantly differ. Significantly favorable postoperative PROM scores were shown in the MIS-TLIF cohort with PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.033, all). Most patients in both cohorts achieved overall minimum clinically important difference for visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12-Item Survey Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF. No differences were noted between cohorts within rates of MCID achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision fusion via MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1-year postoperative mean outcomes and rates of meaningful clinical achievement for physical function, mental health, disability, and back/leg pain. However, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF reported improved physical function at 12 weeks and 6 months. Perioperatively, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF were noted to consume significantly greater quantities of narcotics.

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.