Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis

Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are two minimally invasive lumbar fusion methods that have gained popularity in the past two decades. MIDLIF involves the use of cortical bone trajectory screws, whereas MIS-TLIF uses traditional pedicle screws. However, there is a significant lack of research directly examining the clinical efficacy of these two methods in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Hence, the objective of our retrospective study is to assess and contrast the surgical and clinical results of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. The study population comprised 133 patients diagnosed with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease that received treatment using either MIDLIF (n = 65) or MIS-TLIF (n = 68) in our department from January 2017 to January 2019. The fusion rates for MIDLIF were consistently lower than MID-TLIF at all post-operative time periods of follow-up, however, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. The 1-year fusion rates were 81.5% (MIDLIF) and 83.8% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.728), and the 2-year fusion rates were 87.7% (MIDLIF) and 91.2% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.513). The final follow-up fusion rates were 93.8% (MIDLIF) and 95.6% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.653). MIDLIF had several advantages over MIS-TLIF, including a shorter operative time (135.2 ± 15.70 vs. 160.1 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.001), decreased intraoperative blood loss (147.9 ± 36.4 vs. 169.5 ± 24.7 mL, P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (10.8 ± 3.1 vs. 12.4 ± 4.1d; P = 0.014). No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of the postoperative day of ambulation, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and lower back pain (P > 0.05). Although not significant (P = 0.707), MIDLIF (13.8%) had fewer overall complications than MIS-TLIF (16.2%). Therefore, compared to MIS-TLIF, MIDLIF provides perioperative benefits while achieving the same outcomes as MIS-TLIF in terms of fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate.

Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses

STUDY DESIGN

Umbrella review of meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE

To compile existing meta-analyses to provide analysis of the multiple postoperative outcomes in a comparison of open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (O-TLIFs) versus minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusions (MI-TLIFs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

TLIF is the standard surgical intervention for spinal fusion in degenerative spinal diseases. The comparative effectiveness of MI-TLIFs and O-TLIFs remains controversial.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Titles and abstracts were initially screened, followed by a full-text review based on the inclusion criteria. Twenty articles were deemed eligible for the umbrella review. Data extraction and quality assessment using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews were performed. Effect sizes of the outcomes of interest from primary studies included in the meta-analyses were repooled. Repooling and stratification of the credibility of the evidence were performed using the R package metaumbrella . The pooled effect sizes were compared and interpreted using equivalent Hedges' g values.

RESULTS

When the meta-analyses were pooled, MI-TLIF was found to have a shorter length of stay, less blood loss, and a higher radiation exposure time, with a highly suggestive level of evidence. Data regarding less postoperative drainage, infections, and Oswestry disability index for MI-TLIF were supported by weak evidence. Conversely, data regarding other postoperative outcomes were nonsignificant to draw any conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Our umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant strengths and weaknesses of each surgical technique. This overview revealed that MI-TLIF had better outcomes in terms of length of stay, blood loss, postoperative drainage, infections, and Oswestry disability index when compared with those of O-TLIF. However, O-TLIF had a better outcome for radiation exposure when compared with MI-TLIF.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study

Background

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and traditional open TLIF (O-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disc disease have been poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the outcomes between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF for patients with a degenerative disc disease, focusing on the functional capacity of patients in daily life.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed, comparing 54 patients who underwent O-TLIF and 55 patients who underwent MI-TLIF with a follow-up of 4 years. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-item short form survey (SF-36), and a visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Radiological evaluation was also performed.

Results

At the final follow-up, compared with O-TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with significantly better intraoperative results, including similar operative time (p = 0.246), lower estimated blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (p = 0.001). The final ODI score was significantly better in the MI-TLIF group (p = 0.031). The SF-36-physical (p = 0.023) and VAS pain (p = 0.024) scores were significantly better in the MI-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate (p = 0.747).

Conclusions

The MI-TLIF technique is an effective and safe procedure for degenerative lumbar disc disease. Compared to traditional O-TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with less disability and higher quality of life, with a low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Comparing oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral screw fixation and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (OLIF-PETD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation complicated with lumbar instability

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the early clinical effect of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral screw fixation and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (OLIF-PETD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with lumbar instability.

METHODS

A total of 22 patients with lumbar disc herniation and lumbar instability from August 2017 to August 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The general information, perioperative indicators and complications were recorded. The clinical outcomes and radiological outcomes were evaluated before the operation, seven days after the operation, and at the last follow-up. Vertebral fusion and degree of multifidus muscle injury were evaluated at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

In this study, OLIF + PETD showed shorter incision length compared to the MIS-TLIF (P < 0.001). In the two groups, the clinical outcomes and radiological outcomes were significantly improved compared with the preoperative (P < 0.001). At the seven days after the operation and the last follow-up, the VAS of OLIF + PETD group was lower than that of MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). OLIF + PETD could give superior outcome in restoring disc height (P < 0.001), but the fusion segment angle of OLIF + PETD group was larger compared to the MIS-TLIF group seven days after the operation and at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). In addition, the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), but OLIF + PETD could avoid the multifidus injury (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to MIS-TLIF, OLIF-PETD can achieve satisfactory decompression effects and fusion rates with less multifidus injury and postoperative low back pain, which may be an alternative choice for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation combined with lumbar instability.

Percutaneous endoscopic versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Introduction

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is commonly used in patients with lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). The most commonly used techniques include minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) and percutaneous endoscopic TLIF (PE-TLIF).

Aim

To compare the safety and clinical effectiveness of PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating LDD.

Material and methods

We screened for related articles in multiple scientific databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, VIP, and CINK, and analyzed the relative outcomes.

Results

Based on our inclusion criteria, we selected 8 studies for meta-analysis. There are a total of 229 patients who underwent PE-TLIF and 258 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. MIS-TLIF and PE-TLIF have similar effectiveness in relieving leg pain and improving the Oswestry Disability Index. However, PE-TLIF is superior in relieving back pain. The pooled data of fusion rates, postoperative analgesic, and complication rates are comparable between the 2 groups. The pooled operation and intra-operative fluoroscopic time are both significantly higher in the PE-TLIF group than the MIS-TLIF group. The pooled intra-operative blood loss, incision length, duration from surgery to ambulation, and hospital stay are significantly lower in the PE-TLIF group than the MIS-TLIF group. Most of the endpoints reveal significant heterogeneity. The endpoints of operation time and intra-operative blood loss reveal significant publication bias.

Conclusions

Both PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are safe and effective interventions for patients with LDD. When compared, although MIS-TLIF results in reduced operative time, less intra-operative blood loss and enhanced post-operative recovery can be achieved by PE-TLIF.

Biomechanical studies of different numbers and positions of cage implantation on minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

The position and number of cages in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are mainly determined by surgeons based on their individual experience. Therefore, it is important to investigate the optimal number and position of cages in MIS-TLIF.

METHODS

The lumbar model was created based on a 24-year-old volunteer's computed tomography data and then tested using three different cage implantation methods: single transverse cage implantation (model A), single oblique 45° cage implantation (model B), and double vertical cage implantation (model C). A preload of 500 N and a moment of 10 Nm were applied to the models to simulate lumbar motion, and the models' range of motion (ROM), ROM ratio, peak stress of the internal fixation system, and cage were assessed.

RESULTS

The ROM ratios of models A, B, and C were significantly reduced by >71% compared with the intact model under all motions. Although there were subtle differences in the ROM ratio for models A, B, and C, the trends were similar. The peak stress of the internal fixation system appeared in model B of 136.05 MPa (right lateral bending), which was 2.07 times that of model A and 1.62 times that of model C under the same condition. Model C had the lowest cage stress, which was superior to that of the single-cage model.

CONCLUSION

In MIS-TLIF, single long-cage transversal implantation is a promising standard implantation method, and double short-cage implantation is recommended for patients with severe osteoporosis.

One-level open vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and advanced meta-analytic assessment of prospective studies with at least two years follow-up

PURPOSE

To determine whether the open or the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF, MI-TLIF) is the favored treatment, we provide first meta-analyses using prospective studies with at least two years follow-up only and present the clinical relevance of statistical results for the first time.

METHODS

After a systematic review of six databases, we conducted 10 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 meta-analyses of eligible prospective studies (EPSs) to compare fusion rate, patient-reported outcome measures (back pain (B-VAS), leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)), for the first time safety outcome measures as operative and postoperative complications per case, and the perioperative outcome measures estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time and length of hospital stay (LOS). The clinical relevance was assessed by overall effect sizes (OESs) of statistically significant meta-analytic results.

RESULTS

In our meta-analyses of RCTs, MI-TLIF is statistically significantly superior in ODI, EBL and LOS, with clinically meaningful OESs only in EBL and LOS. In meta-analyses of EPSs, MI-TLIF is statistically significantly superior in B-VAS, postoperative complications per case, EBL and LOS, all with clinically meaningful OESs except for B-VAS. The meta-analyses of remaining outcome measures present statistically nonsignificant results. In a descriptive analysis of complications, postoperative wound infections predominate in O-TLIF and hardware malposition in MI-TLIF.

CONCLUSION

After at least two years, O-TLIF and MI-TLIF can be considered equally efficacious, which simplifies surgeons' decision between both treatments, however, with the safety outcome measure postoperative complications per case and the perioperative outcome measures EBL and LOS in favor of MI-TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or RCTs with a low risk of bias.

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

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the clinical and radiological results of minimally invasive (MI) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis over a 10-year period.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Few studies have compared 10-year follow-up outcomes between MI-TLIF and open TLIF.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected the outcome data of patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent TLIF procedures using an MI (n = 108) or open (n = 53) approach. Fifty-two (48%) and 31 (58%) patients in the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups, respectively, completed the 10-year follow-up. A primary clinical outcome included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as well as visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain at baseline and at 2, 5, and 10 years postoperatively. The radiographic fusion rate and incidence of secondary surgery due to adjacent segment disease were assessed at 2, 5, and 10 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss and length of hospitalization were significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group. At 2 years postoperatively, the ODI and VAS scores for back and leg pain were significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group. No significant differences were found in VAS scores for back and leg pain or ODI scores between the two groups at 10 years postoperatively. Radiographic fusion rates and prevalence of secondary surgery for adjacent segment disease were not significantly different between the groups at 10 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of MI-TLIF for patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis is comparable to that of open TLIF over 10-years. However, MI-TLIF may have superior perioperative recovery and 2-year postoperative functional outcomes than open TLIF.Level of Evidence: 3.

MIS TLIF, EndoTLIF, and the Ability of Navigation/Robotics to Enable Spinal Surgery in an Ambulatory Care Setting

STUDY DESIGN

Technical Report.

OBJECTIVE

Performing surgeries in the ambulatory surgery center affords improved efficiencies in terms of cost and speed. However, ambulatory surgery is only successful if complications, re-admissions, and re-operations are avoided. This report describes the San Diego Outpatient Lumbar Fusion Program, a culmination of cumulative incremental improvements in patient selection and patient education, meticulous peri-operative management, minimally invasive techniques together with navigation/robotics.

METHODS

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 1-2 level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (MIS TLIF).

RESULTS

Healthy patients (age 72 years old or less, BMI less than 50, ASA 1 or 2) with good social support and reasonable pre-operative function (ODI 50 or less) treated with the MIS TLIF technique can be discharged home in less than 1 midnight with good clinical results.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively young, healthy patients can safely and effectively undergo 1-2 level lumbar fusion surgery in the ASC setting when using contemporary minimally invasive techniques and computer-assisted navigation/robotics.

Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) was developed in addition to open-TLIF to minimize iatrogenic soft-tissue damage. A potential disadvantage of MIS-TLIF is inadequate visualization, which may lead to incomplete neural decompression and a less robust arthrodesis. This may cause long-term problems and result in decreased patient satisfaction.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term clinical outcome, measured by patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with single-level TLIF (open vs. minimally invasive) with a minimum follow-up of 2-years.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from the date of inception to August 2019. The inclusion criteria were (1) longitudinal comparative studies of MIS-TLIF versus open-TLIF approach for degenerative spine disease (2) outcomes reported as PROMs, (3) minimum follow-up of 2-years.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. In total, 1,321 patients were included (660 MIS-TLIF& 661 open-TLIF). The following PROMS were analyzed: EQ-5D, SF, ODI, and VAS. Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in PROM, which remained significant at 2-years follow-up. However, no significant differences were found in all PROMs at 2-years follow-up. Both treatments resulted in a high rate of spinal fusion (80.5% vs. 91.1%; p=.29) and low rate of reoperation (3.0% vs. 2.4%; p=.50) or adjacent segment disease (12.6% vs. 12.40%; p=.50).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF have comparable long-term clinical outscomes. Both operations can significantly reduce pain and positively improve PROMs. No significant differences were found between both treatments in clinical outcomes at a follow-up of minimal 2-years. Therefore, MIS-TLIF seems to be an effective and safe alternative to traditional open-TLIF in the long-term.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers

Background

The goal of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is to restore and maintain disc height and lordosis until arthrodesis occurs, while minimizing muscle disruption and improving recovery time. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes in patients treated with an articulating expandable spacer in MI TLIF to more traditional static spacers.

Methods

This was a multi-site, multi-surgeon, Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective clinical study from a prospectively collected database. It included 48 patients with a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level from L2 to S1 with or without Grade 1 spondylolisthesis who underwent MI TLIF using either an articulating expandable or static interbody spacer. Twenty-seven patients were in the banana-shaped articulating expandable interbody spacer (ALTERA^®, Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) group, while 21 patients were in the static interbody spacer group. Both groups had supplemental posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation. Radiographic records were assessed for disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up.

Results

The articulating expandable spacer group displayed significantly greater improvement in anterior disc height from baseline compared to the static spacer group at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.6 mm (79%), 2.8 mm (92%), 3.4 mm (105%), and 3.8 mm (139%), respectively (P<0.05). Mean increases in posterior disc height were significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group by 1.2 mm (65%) and 1.7 mm (104%) at 6 months and final follow-up, respectively (P<0.05). Articulating expandable spacers produced significantly greater average improvement by 4.0 mm in neuroforaminal height from baseline to final follow-up compared to static spacers (P<0.05). Increases in intervertebral angle from baseline were significantly greater in the expandable group than in the static group at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.5°, 2.8°, and 3.1°, respectively (P<0.05). The articulating expandable spacer group resulted in significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis from baseline to 3 and 6 months than the static spacer group by 4.4° and 4.0°, respectively (P<0.05).

Conclusions

MI TLIF with articulating expandable interbody spacers provides significant restoration and maintenance of disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis compared to static spacers in this comparative cohort. Long-term clinical outcomes are needed to correlate with these radiographic improvements.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Preoperative pathology requiring fusion surgery has a great impact on postoperative outcomes. However, the previous clinical and meta-analysis studies did not control for the pathology. In this systematic review, the authors aimed to compare oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) as an interbody fusion technique in lumbar fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). We systematically searched for relevant articles in the available databases. Among the 3022 articles, three studies were identified and met the inclusion criteria. In terms of radiological outcome, the amount of disc height restoration was greater in the OLIF group than in the TLIF group, but there was no significant difference between the two surgical techniques (p = 0.18). In the clinical outcomes, the pain improvement was not significantly different between the two surgical techniques. In terms of surgical outcomes, OLIF resulted in a shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The present meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in clinical, radiological outcomes, and surgical time between TLIF and OLIF for DS, but the lengths of hospital stay and blood loss were better in OLIF than TLIF. Though encouraging, these findings were based on low-quality evidence from a small number of retrospective studies that are prone to bias.

Comparison of MRI Visualization Following Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Analysis of magnetic resonance image (MRI) quality after open (Op)-transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive (MI)-TLIF with the implantation of structurally different systems has not previously been performed. The objective of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the postoperative MRI following MI and Op one-segment TLIF. Material and Methods: The nonrandomized retrospective single-center study included 80 patients (46 men and 24 women) aged 48 + 14.2 years. In group I (n = 20) Op-TLIF with open transpedicular screw fixation (TSF) was performed, in II group (n = 60), the MI-TLIF technique was used: IIa (n = 20)—rigid interspinous stabilizer; IIb (n = 20)—unilateral TSF and contralateral facet fixation; IIc (n = 20)—bilateral TSF. Results: Comparison of the quality of postoperative imaging in IIa and IIb subgroups showed fewer MRI artifacts and a significantly greater MR deterioration after Op and MI TSF. Comparison of the multifidus muscle area showed less atrophy after MI-TLIF and significantly greater atrophy after Op-TLIF. Conclusion: MI-TLIF and Op-TLIF with TSF have comparable postoperative MR artifacts at the operative level, with a greater degree of muscle atrophy using the Op-TLIF. Rigid interspinous implant and unilateral TSF with contralateral facet fixation have less artifacts and changes in the multifidus muscle area.

Lordosis Restoration With Midline Minimally Invasive Cortical Trajectory Screws (MidLF) and Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Safe Technique With a Short Stay

BACKGROUND

The minimally invasive cortical trajectory screw (MidLF) technique has been described accompanied with posterolateral interbody fusion (PLIF). We present our 2-year results of a hybrid technique to show that using transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) rather than PLIF in conjunction with MidLF is a less invasive and safe technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 25 patients who underwent MidLF with TLIF from July 2015 through September 2017. The surgical technique was the same for each, with radiological, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data collected and analyzed at a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The cohort showed a mean age of 55 (35-85) years. The length of hospital stay was between 1 and 4 days, with an average of 2.7 days. Postoperatively, lordosis across the motion segment fused increased by a mean of 7.3° (0°-24°), mean pelvic incidence was 53°(31°-80°), and pelvic tilt reduced by an average of 3.5° (0°-11°). The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 34 preoperatively to 19 postoperatively. Visual analogue pain score-leg improved by 4.7 points, from 6 down to 1. One patient showed delayed wound healing. There were no incidences of neurological injury or durotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that MidLF with TLIF is both less invasive than traditional techniques and safe. It restores lordosis, requires less exposure and retraction of neural elements than the more widely used PLIF, and shows early discharge and satisfactory medium-term patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The MidLF technique with PLIF is less invasive than traditional techniques, restores alignment and shows satisfactory medium term results.

[Effectiveness of simultaneous and staged minimally invasive dorsal decompression-stabilization procedures in patients with lumbar spine degenerative diseases]

Minimally invasive procedures reduce the trauma of spine surgery. However, they are associated with high complexity of manipulations, long learning curve, need for expensive equipment for intraoperative navigation and significant irradiation. Various options for surgical approaches are being developed to reduce irradiation of medical staff and patients, surgery time and the number of drugs administered for general anesthesia. Simultaneous surgical interventions (SiSI) is one of these options.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of simultaneous and staged minimally invasive dorsal decompression-stabilization procedures in patients with lumbar spine degenerative diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study included 67 patients (41 men and 26 women) aged 48 (34; 56) years who underwent a single-level minimally invasive spinal root decompression and transforaminal interbody fusion via Wiltse posterior-lateral approach. Two study groups were distinguished: group I (simultaneous surgical interventions, SiSI) (n=29), in which guide spokes and transpedicular screws were installed simultaneously by two surgeons within one x-ray session from two sides; group II (staged surgical interventions, StSI) (n=38), in which staged transpedicular stabilization was performed (decompression side followed by contralateral side). Mean follow-up was 14 months in group I and 20 months in group II. We considered intraoperative fluoroscopy and irradiation dose, duration of surgery and anesthesia with calculation of doses of opioid drugs, blood loss, time of activation, hospital-stay and perioperative morbidity. Clinical outcomes were studied in long-term postoperative period.

RESULTS

Simultaneous approach ensured less time of intraoperative fluoroscopy (p=0.029) and irradiation dose (p=0.035), duration of surgery (p=0.01) and anesthesia (p=0.02), amount of opioid drugs during anesthesia (p=0.017). Blood loss, duration of activation and hospitals-stay were similar in both groups (p=0.35, p=0.12 and p=0.57, respectively). There was comparable improvement in VAS score of pain in the lumbar spine and lower extremities in both groups (p=0.63 and p=0.31, respectively). According to SF-36 questionnaire, there was no between-group difference in physical and psychological components (p=0.44 and p=0.72, respectively). There was significantly greater number of adverse effects of anesthesia in the StSI group (26.2% vs. 6.8%, p=0.003). At the same time, the number of surgical postoperative complications was similar in both groups (3.4% vs. 5.3%, p=0.62).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous minimally invasive dorsal decompression-stabilization procedures have some significant advantages over staged approach regarding intraoperative parameters and adverse effects of anesthesia in patients with lumbar spine degenerative diseases. Nevertheless, there were similar clinical data and small incidence of surgical perioperative complications.

Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

In this review, we address the question of whether the literature supports the notion that minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) improves outcome as compared with open TLIF (open-TLIF). Short and long-term outcomes, fusion rate, and cost-effectiveness were reviewed.

METHODS

This is a narrative review using various databases. Open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF studies were included and posterior lumbar interbody fusion studies were excluded. A description of paramedian incision in surgical technique was essential to the definition of MIS-TLIF. The present review included 14 prospective observational studies and 6 randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

With short-term outcomes, some studies indicate a better outcome with MIS-TLIF regarding intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, time to ambulation, postoperative narcotic use, and time to resume work. Both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF surgeries improved Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain. Some studies show that MIS-TLIF resulted in lower back pain than open-TLIF. Radiation exposure was higher with MIS-TLIF. In the longer term, clinical outcomes were improved in both MIS and open TLIF groups. Fusion rates were more than 90% in both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF. Cost-effectiveness and length of surgery had mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits of MIS-TLIF might be present in the early recovery period after surgery. Long-term outcomes were similar with both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF.

Complications with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis in the Obese Population

STUDY DESIGN

A level-3 retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe obesity's effect on complications and outcomes in degenerative spondylolisthesis patients treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Obesity is associated with a greater complication rate among lumbar spine surgery patients. Poor clinical outcomes might likewise be supposed, but the association is not well established. Minimally invasive techniques have been developed to reduce complications and improve clinical outcomes in comparison to traditional open techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed 134 consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing MI TLIF. Subjects were grouped into nonobese (N = 65) and obese (N = 69) cohorts. The obese group was further subdivided by BMI. Patient demographics, perioperative complications, and outcome scores were collected over a minimum of 24 months. Four periods (intraoperative, postoperative hospitalization, 6-month, and 24-month postoperative) were assessed.

RESULTS

Cohort demographics were not significantly different, but it was noted that obese patients had more major comorbidities than nonobese patients. There was no difference in intraoperative complications between the two groups. The in-hospital complication rate was significantly greater in the obese group. The 6-month postoperative complication rate was not different between cohorts. Wound drainage was most common and noted only in the obese cohort. Complications at 24 months were not different but did trend toward significance in the obese for recurrence of symptoms and total complications. Functional outcome was better among nonobese subjects compared with obese subjects at every interval (significant at 6 and 12 months). Back pain scores were significantly better among nonobese subjects than obese subjects at 24 months, but Leg Pain scores were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

MI TLIF can be safely performed in the obese population despite a higher in-hospital complication rate. Knowledge of common complications will help the treatment team appropriately manage obese patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.