Minimally invasive one-level lumbar decompression and fusion surgery with posterior instrumentation using a combination of pedicle screw fixation and transpedicular facet screw construct

Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous Process Compression Improve Segmental Stability?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the biomechanical implications of spinous process compression, via in situ shortening of a next-generation interspinous process fixation (ISPF) device, in the context of segmental fusion.

METHODS

Seven lumbar cadaveric spines (L1-L4) were tested. Specimens were first tested in an intact state, followed by iterative instrumentation at L2-3 and subsequent testing. The order followed was 1) stand-alone ISPF (neutral height); 2) stand-alone ISPF (shortened in situ from neutral height; shortened); 3) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + ISPF (neutral); 4) LLIF + ISPF (shortened); 5) LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation; 6) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. A 7.5-Nm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation via a kinematic test frame. Segmental range of motion (ROM) and lordosis were measured for all constructs. Comparative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant flexion/extension ROM reductions: all constructs versus intact condition (P < 0.01); LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + USPF versus ISPF (neutral) (P = 0.049); bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) (P < 0.01). Significant lateral bending ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P < 0.01); LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P < 0.01). Significant axial rotation ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (shortened) and LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P ≤ 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P ≤ 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In situ shortening of an adjustable ISPF device may support increased segmental stabilization compared with static ISPF.

Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To date there is no consensus among surgeons as to what defines an MIS-TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using minimally invasive spine surgery) compared to an open or mini-open TLIF. This systematic review aimed to examine the MIS-TLIF techniques reported in the recent body of literature to help provide a definition of what constitutes the MIS-TLIF, based on the consensus of the majority of surgeons.

METHODS

We created a database of articles published about MIS-TLIF between 2010 and 2018. We evaluated the technical components of the MIS-TLIF including instruments and incisions used as well the order in which key steps are performed.

RESULTS

We could identify several patterns for MIS-TLIF performance that seemed agreed upon by the majority of MIS surgeons: use of paramedian incisions; use of a tubular retractor to perform a total facetectomy, decompression, and interbody cage implantation; and percutaneous insertion of the pedicle-screw rod constructs with intraoperative imaging.

CONCLUSION

Based on this review of the literature, the key features used by surgeons performing MIS TLIF include the use of nonexpandable or expandable tubular retractors, a paramedian or lateral incision, and the use of a microscope or endoscope for visualization. Approaches using expandable nontubular retractors, those that require extensive subperiosteal dissection from the midline laterally, or specular-based retractors with wide pedicle to pedicle exposure are far less likely to be promoted as an MIS-based approach. A definition is necessary to improve the communication among spine surgeons in research as well as patient education.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Rigid Interspinous Process Fixation: A Learning Curve Analysis of a Surgeon Team's First 74 Cases

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that a significant learning curve may be associated with adopting minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF). Accordingly, several hybrid TLIF techniques have been proposed as surrogates to the accepted BPSF technique, asserting that less/fewer fixation(s) or less disruptive fixation may decrease the learning curve while still maintaining the minimally disruptive benefits. TLIF with interspinous process fixation (ISPF) is one such surrogate procedure. However, despite perceived ease of adaptability given the favorable proximity of the spinous processes, no evidence exists demonstrating whether or not the technique may possess its own inherent learning curve. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intraoperative learning curve for one- and two-level TLIF + ISPF may exist for a single lead surgeon.

METHODS

Seventy-four consecutive patients who received one- or two-Level TLIF with rigid ISPF by a single lead surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. It was the first TLIF + ISPF case series for the lead surgeon. Intraoperative blood loss (EBL), hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), fluoroscopy time, and postoperative complications were collected. EBL, LOS, and fluoroscopy time were modeled as a function of case number using multiple linear regression methods. A change point was included in each model to allow the trajectory of the outcomes to change during the duration of the case series. These change points were determined using profile likelihood methods. Models were fit using the maximum likelihood estimates for the change points. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and the number of treated levels were included as covariates.

RESULTS

EBL, LOS, and fluoroscopy time did not significantly differ by age, sex, or BMI (p ≥ 0.12). Only EBL differed significantly by the number of levels (p = 0.026). The case number was not a significant predictor of EBL, LOS, or fluoroscopy time (p ≥ 0.21). At the time of data collection (mean time from surgery: 13.3 months), six patients had undergone revision due to interbody migration. No ISPF device complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Study outcomes support the ideal that TLIF + ISPF can be a readily adopted procedure without a significant intraoperative learning curve. However, the authors emphasize that further assessment of long-term healing outcomes is essential in fully characterizing both the efficacy and the indication learning curve for the TLIF + ISPF technique.

Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are 2 currently popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis. The authors compare the total risk of each procedure, along with other important complication outcomes. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (up to May 2015) that reported complications of either MI-TLIF or LLIF were identified from a search in the PubMed database. The primary outcome was overall risk of complication per patient. Secondary outcomes included risks of sensory deficits, temporary neurological deficit, permanent neurological deficit, intraoperative complications, medical complications, wound complications, hardware failure, subsidence, and reoperation. RESULTS Fifty-four studies were included for analysis of MI-TLIF, and 42 studies were included for analysis of LLIF. Overall, there were 9714 patients (5454 in the MI-TLIF group and 4260 in the LLIF group) with 13,230 levels fused (6040 in the MI-TLIF group and 7190 in the LLIF group). A total of 1045 complications in the MI-TLIF group and 1339 complications in the LLIF group were reported. The total complication rate per patient was 19.2% in the MI-TLIF group and 31.4% in the LLIF group (p < 0.0001). The rate of sensory deficits and temporary neurological deficits, and permanent neurological deficits was 20.16%, 2.22%, and 1.01% for MI-TLIF versus 27.08%, 9.40%, and 2.46% for LLIF, respectively (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.002, respectively). Rates of intraoperative and wound complications were 3.57% and 1.63% for MI-TLIF compared with 1.93% and 0.80% for LLIF, respectively (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.034, respectively). No significant differences were noted for medical complications or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS While there was a higher overall complication rate with LLIF, MI-TLIF and LLIF both have acceptable complication profiles. LLIF had higher rates of sensory as well as temporary and permanent neurological symptoms, although rates of intraoperative and wound complications were less than MI-TLIF. Larger, prospective comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is of relative poor quality.

More nerve root injuries occur with minimally invasive lumbar surgery: Let's tell someone

Background:

In a recent study entitled: “More nerve root injuries occur with minimally invasive lumbar surgery, especially extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): A review”, Epstein documented that more nerve root injuries occurred utilizing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open lumbar surgery for diskectomy, decompression of stenosis (laminectomy), and/or fusion for instability.

Methods:

In large multicenter Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial reviews performed by Desai et al., nerve root injury with open diskectomy occurred in 0.13–0.25% of cases, occurred in 0% of laminectomy/stenosis with/without fusion cases, and just 2% for open laminectomy/stenosis/degenerative spondylolisthesis with/without fusion.

Results:

In another MIS series performed largely for disc disease (often contained nonsurgical disc herniations, therefore unnecessary procedures) or spondylolisthesis, the risk of root injury was 2% for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus 7.8% for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Furthermore, the high frequencies of radiculitis/nerve root/plexus injuries incurring during anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIF: 15.8%) versus extreme lumbar interbody fusions (XLIF: 23.8%), addressing disc disease, failed back surgery, and spondylolisthesis, were far from acceptable.

Conclusions:

The incidence of nerve root injuries following any of the multiple MIS lumbar surgical techniques (TLIF/PLIF/ALIF/XLIF) resulted in more nerve root injuries when compared with open conventional lumbar surgical techniques. Considering the majority of these procedures are unnecessarily being performed for degenerative disc disease alone, spine surgeons should be increasingly asked why they are offering these operations to their patients?

More nerve root injuries occur with minimally invasive lumbar surgery, especially extreme lateral interbody fusion: A review

BACKGROUND

In the lumbar spine, do more nerve root injuries occur utilizing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques versus open lumbar procedures? To answer this question, we compared the frequency of nerve root injuries for multiple open versus MIS operations including diskectomy, laminectomy with/without fusion addressing degenerative disc disease, stenosis, and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Several of Desai et al. large Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial studies showed the frequency for nerve root injury following an open diskectomy ranged from 0.13% to 0.25%, for open laminectomy/stenosis with/without fusion it was 0%, and for open laminectomy/stenosis/degenerative spondylolisthesis with/without fusion it was 2%.

RESULTS

Alternatively, one study compared the incidence of root injuries utilizing MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) techniques; 7.8% of PLIF versus 2% of TLIF patients sustained root injuries. Furthermore, even higher frequencies of radiculitis and nerve root injuries occurred during anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) versus extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIFs). These high frequencies were far from acceptable; 15.8% following ALIF experienced postoperative radiculitis, while 23.8% undergoing XLIF sustained root/plexus deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that MIS (TLIF/PLIF/ALIF/XLIF) lumbar surgery resulted in a higher incidence of root injuries, radiculitis, or plexopathy versus open lumbar surgical techniques. Furthermore, even a cursory look at the XLIF data demonstrated the greater danger posed to neural tissue by this newest addition to the MIS lumbar surgical armamentariu. The latter should prompt us as spine surgeons to question why the XLIF procedure is still being offered to our patients?

Comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral pedicle screw fixation or unilateral pedicle screw-contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation

PURPOSE

To determine whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation is comparable with unilateral pedicle screw and contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation in single-level lumbar spinal fusion.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients were divided into either unilateral (n = 32) or unilateral pedicle screw and contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation (n = 26) instrumentation groups. The operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, total lumbar scoliotic changes, and fusion and complication rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss, length of hospital stay, clinical results, total lumbar scoliotic changes, and fusion and complication rates. There were significant differences in duration of operating time between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation may be as effective as unilateral PS with contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disorders.

Clinical application of the paraspinal erector approach for spinal canal decompression in upper lumber burst fractures

Objective

Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is commonly used for upper lumber burst fractures. The direct decompression remains challenging with this minimally invasive surgery. The objective was to evaluate a novel paraspinal erector approach for effective and direct decompression in patients with canal compromise and neurologic deficit.

Method

Patients (n = 21) with neurological deficiency and Denis B type upper lumbar burst fracture were enrolled in the study, including 14 cases in the L1 and 7 cases in the L2. The patients underwent removal of bone fragments from the spinal canal through intervertebral foramen followed by short-segment fixation. Evaluations included surgery-related, such as duration of surgery and blood loss, and 12-month follow-up, such as the kyphotic angle, the height ratio of the anterior edge of the vertebra, the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Frankel scores.

Results

All patients achieved direct spinal canal decompression using the paraspinal erector approach followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. The mean operation time (SD) was 173 (23) min, and the mean (SD) blood loss was 301 (104) ml. Significant improvement was noted in the kyphotic angle, 26.2 ± 8.7 prior to operation versus 9.1 ± 4.7 at 12 months after operation (p <0.05); the height ratio of the anterior edge of the injured vertebra, 60 ± 16% versus 84 ± 9% (p <0.05); and the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, 46.5 ± 11.4% versus 4.3 ± 3.6% (p <0.05). Significant improvements in VAS (7.3 ± 1.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.7, p <0.05), ODI (86.7 ± 5.8 vs. 16.7 ± 5.1, p <0.05), and Frankel scores were also noted.

Conclusions

The paraspinal erector approach was effective for direct spinal canal decompression with minimal injury in the paraspinal muscles or spine. Significant improvements in spinal function and prognostics were achieved after the percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.

A meta-analysis of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PS) after lumbar interbody fusion is a widely accepted method of managing various spinal diseases. Recently, unilateral PS fixation has been reported as effective as bilateral PS fixation. This meta-analysis aimed to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation in the minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Cochrane Library were searched through March 30, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion that met the inclusion criteria and the methodological quality standard were retrieved and reviewed. Data on participant characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 CCT) involving 298 patients were selected. There were no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PS fixation procedures in fusion rate, complications, visual analogue score (VAS) for leg pain, VAS for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI). Both fixation procedures had similar length of hospital stay (MD = 0.38, 95% CI = -0.83 to 1.58; P = 0.54). In contrast, bilateral PS fixation was associated with significantly more intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.002) and significantly longer operation time (P = 0.02) as compared with unilateral PS fixation.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral PS fixation appears as effective and safe as bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion but requires less operative time and causes less blood loss, thus offering a simple alternative approach for one-level lumbar degenerative disease.