Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single segmental lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis

Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-year Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Currently, there is no established guideline on whether to opt for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) or traditional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery based on specific types of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Based on the Michigan State University (MSU) classification system, this study conducted a medium- to long-term follow-up analysis of two surgical methods over 5 years for the first time, aiming to provide empirical evidence to assist in making more informed decisions before surgery for LDH treatment.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included 273 patients with single-level LDH who underwent PELD or TLIF treatment at our hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Detailed metrics included preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1-day, 1-week, 1-year, and 5-year follow-ups. Complications, recurrences, and 5-year postoperative modified MacNab criteria scores were also recorded. Statistical methods included independent sample t-tests, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and χ2 tests.

RESULTS

Classified into seven groups according to the MSU classification, it was found that there was an improvement in the VAS and ODI scores at four postoperative follow-ups (p < 0.001). PELD showed better results than TLIF in reducing pain and improving the ODI scores in the classifications of 3B, 2B, and 2C (p < 0.05). TLIF demonstrated consistent superiority over PELD in 2A, 2AB, 3A, and 3AB classifications (p < 0.05). The total recurrence rate in the PELD group (11.05%) within 5 years after surgery was higher (p < 0.05) than that in the TLIF group (3.96%). These were mainly concentrated in the 2A, 2AB, 3A, and 3AB types. Moreover, the rate of excellent and good outcomes in the PELD was higher than in the TLIF but no significant difference (χ2 = 1.0568, p = 0.5895).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that PELD and TLIF may relieve LDH, but have advantages under different MSU classifications. The MSU classification has specific guiding significance and could aid in the surgical selection of PELD or TLIF to achieve optimal treatment outcomes for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

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.

Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of multi‑segmental lumbar degenerative disease: A systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis

The present study aimed to compare the differences between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar fusion (TLIF) for multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease regarding intraoperative indices and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases were searched for literature on MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases. Of the 1,608 articles retrieved, 10 were included for final analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Review Manager 5.4 were used for quality evaluation and data analysis, respectively. The MIS-TLIF group was superior to the open TLIF group regarding intraoperative blood loss [95% confidence interval (CI): -254.33,-157.86; P<0.00001], postoperative in-bed time (95%CI: -3.49,-2.76; P<0.00001), hospitalization time (95%CI: -5.14,-1.78; P<0.0001) and postoperative leg pain Visual Analog Scale score (95%CI: -0.27,-0.13; P<0.00001). The fluoroscopy frequency for MIS-TLIF (95%CI: 2.07,6.12; P<0.0001) was significantly higher than that for open TLIF. The two groups had no significant differences in operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative complications, fusion rate, or Oswestry Disability Index score. In treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less blood loss, shorter bedtime and hospitalization time and improved early postoperative efficacy; however, open TLIF has a lower fluoroscopy frequency.

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.

Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Using the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique Compared With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spine Diseases: Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There has been a widespread application of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques in the past few years. Unilateral biportal endoscopic has been successfully used in a variety of lumbar spine diseases, but there are few studies on lumbar fusion assisted by unilateral biportal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal interbody fusion using the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique (UBEIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with lumbar disease.

METHODS

We studied 128 patients, 58 in the UBEIF group and 70 in the TLIF group. The Oswestry disability index, creatine kinase, visual analog score (VAS) for leg and back pain were used to assess clinical outcomes. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using the fusion rate, internal fixation loosening, and adjacent segment degeneration.

RESULTS

Back and leg pain VAS scores in both groups were significantly lower 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery ( P < .05). A significant reduction in Oswestry disability index in both groups was observed 6 and 12 months after surgery ( P < .05). Compared with the TLIF group at 1 week after surgery, UBEIF patients' VAS score for back pain significantly improved ( P < .05). There was no difference in fusion rate between the 2 groups (98.27% vs 98.57%).

CONCLUSION

UBEIF and TLIF have similar clinical and radiographic outcomes in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disease with lumbar instability, including improved back and leg pain, improved disability, and high fusion rates. Furthermore, with UBEIF, less blood is lost, there is better relief of early back pain, and hospital stays are shorter.

Decellularized matrix for repairing intervertebral disc degeneration: Fabrication methods, applications and animal models

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD)-induced low back pain significantly influences the quality of life, placing a burden on public health systems worldwide. Currently available therapeutic strategies, such as conservative or operative treatment, cannot effectively restore intervertebral disc (IVD) function. Decellularized matrix (DCM) is a tissue-engineered biomaterial fabricated using physical, chemical, and enzymatic technologies to eliminate cells and antigens. By contrast, the extracellular matrix (ECM), including collagen and glycosaminoglycans, which are well retained, have been extensively studied in IVD regeneration. DCM inherits the native architecture and specific-differentiation induction ability of IVD and has demonstrated effectiveness in IVD regeneration in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, significant improvements have been achieved in the preparation process, mechanistic insights, and application of DCM for IDD repair. Herein, we comprehensively summarize and provide an overview of the roles and applications of DCM for IDD repair based on the existing evidence to shed a novel light on the clinical treatment of IDD.

[Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and fenestration discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), and traditional fenestration discectomy (FD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

The clinical data of 347 LDH patients who met the selection criteria and underwent discectomy between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into FD group (160 cases), PELD group (86 cases), and UBED group (101 cases) according to operation methods. There was no significant difference in gender, age, surgical level distribution, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, hospitalization stay, treatment cost, and incidence of surgery-related complications were recorded and compared between groups. The patients' pain and functional recovery were evaluated by VAS score and ODI before and after operation.

RESULTS

The operation time of FD group was significantly shorter than that of PELD group and UBED group, and the hospitalization stay was significantly longer than that of PELD group and UBED group ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference between PELD group and UBED group ( P>0.05). The treatment cost in UBED group was significantly higher than that in PELD group, and in PELD group than in FD group ( P<0.05). All the patients were followed up 6-24 months, with an average of 14.6 months. VAS score of lower extremity and ODI in 3 groups significantly improved after operation when compared with that before operation ( P<0.05). At 1 day after operation, VAS score of lower extremity of UBED group was significantly better than that in PELD group and FD group ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between PELD group and FD group ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores of lower extremity between the 3 groups at 1 and 3 months after operation ( P>0.05). The difference of ODI before and after operation in FD group and UBED group was slightly better than that in PELD group ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between FD group and UBED group ( P>0.05). Incidence of surgery-related complications in FD group (20.0%) was significantly higher than that in PELD group (12.8%) and UBED group (6.9%), and PELD group was significantly higher than UBED group ( P<0.05). All the incision infection occurred in FD group (12 cases), symptomatic disc cyst and myeloid hypertension-like occurred in 1 case each in PELD group.

CONCLUSION

UBED, PELD, and FD have similar effectiveness on lower extremity pain in early LDH. Compared with FD, UBED and PELD have the advantage of shorter hospitalization stay and fewer complications.