Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series

Background

Robotic-assisted, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RE-TLIF) is a promising, minimally invasive surgical option for degenerative lumbar spondylosis/spondylolisthesis; however, outcomes data and efficacy are limited, especially in multilevel disease. Here, we present the first reported series of patients that underwent either single or multilevel RE-TLIF.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on 23 consecutive patients who underwent a single level or multilevel RE-TLIF by a single surgeon. Variables included demographics, perioperative results, pain scores, and functional outcome scores.

Results

Eighteen patients (78.3 %) underwent single level RE-TLIF and 5 patients (21.7 %) underwent multilevel RE-TLIF. The median reduction of visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain (LBP) of all subjects was 6 (IQR = 4.5, 6.5) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.565). The median reduction of VAS for leg pain of all subjects 7 (IQR = 6, 8) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.702). Median blood loss was 25 cc (IQR = 25, 25) and 50 cc (IQR = 25, 100) for single and multilevel RE-TLIF, respectively (p = 0.025), whereas median length of stay was 1 (IQR = 1, 1; mean = 1.0 ± 00.18) days and 1 (IQR = 1, 2; mean = 1.4 ± 00.54) days, respectively (p = 0.042). One major complication was observed requiring reoperation for demineralized bone matrix migration resulting in an L5 radiculopathy.

Conclusions

Single and multi-level RE-TLIF appears to be a safe and efficacious approach with comparable outcomes to open and other minimally invasive approaches. Additionally, we observed favorable accuracy in robot-assisted pedicle screw, endoscope, and interbody device placement.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with a microscopic tubular technique has become a surgical procedure that reduces surgical-related morbidity, shortens hospital stays, and expedites early rehabilitation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) has emerged as a novel surgical technique. The present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications of MIS-TLIF and Endo-TLIF for treating LDD.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of LLD patients undergoing either Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Patient demographics, operative data (operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization), and complications were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg and back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

This study involved 80 patients, 56 in the MIS-TLIF group and 34 in the Endo-TLIF group. The Endo-TLIF group showed a more substantial improvement in the VAS for back pain at 3 weeks post-surgery compared to the MIS-TLIF group. However, at the 1-year mark after surgery, there were no significant differences between the groups in the mean VAS for back pain and VAS for leg pain. Interestingly, the ODI at one year demonstrated a significant improvement in the Endo-TLIF group compared to the MIS-TLIF group. Additionally, the MIS-TLIF group exhibited a shorter operative time than the Endo-TLIF group, with no notable differences in estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LDD. In surgical decision-making, clinicians may consider nuances revealed in this study, such as lower early postoperative back pain with Endo-TLIF and shorter operative time with MIS-TLIF.

Management of Spinal Metastasis by Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques: Surgical Principles and Indications-A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Spinal metastasis is becoming more frequent. This raises the topics of pain and neurological complications, which worsen the functional and survival prognosis of oncological population patients. Surgical treatment must be as complete as possible in order to decompress and stabilize without delaying the management of the oncological disease. Minimally invasive spine surgical techniques inflict less damage on the musculocutaneous plan than opened ones.

METHODS

Different minimally invasive techniques are proposed in this paper for the management of spinal metastasis. We used our experience, developed degenerative and traumatic pathologies, and referred to many authors, establishing a narrative review of our local practice.

RESULTS

Forty-eight articles were selected, and these allowed us to describe the different techniques: percutaneous methods such as vertebro/kyphoplasty, osteosynthesis, mini-open surgery, or that through a posterior or anterior approach. Also, some studies detail the contribution of new technologies, such as intraoperative CT scan and robotic assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems essential to offer a lasting solution to a spinal problem, such as in the form of pain relief, stabilization, and decompression. Our department has embraced a multidisciplinary and multidimensional approach to MISS, incorporating cutting-edge technologies and evidence-based practices.

Augmented Reality in Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery: A Narrative Review of Available Technology

INTRODUCTION

Spine surgery has undergone significant changes in approach and technique. With the adoption of intraoperative navigation, minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) has arguably become the gold standard. Augmented reality (AR) has now emerged as a front-runner in anatomical visualization and narrower operative corridors. In effect, AR is poised to revolutionize surgical training and operative outcomes. Our study examines the current literature on AR-assisted MISS, synthesizes findings, and creates a narrative highlighting the history and future of AR in spine surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Relevant literature was gathered using the PubMed (Medline) database from 1975 to 2023. Pedicle screw placement models were the primary intervention in AR. These were compared to the outcomes of traditional MISS RESULTS: We found that AR devices on the market show promising clinical outcomes in preoperative training and intraoperative use. Three prominent systems were as follows: XVision, HoloLens, and ImmersiveTouch. In the studies, surgeons, residents, and medical students had opportunities to operate AR systems, showcasing their educational potential across each phase of learning. Specifically, one facet described training with cadaver models to gauge accuracy in pedicle screw placement. AR-MISS exceeded free-hand methods without unique complications or contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

While still in its infancy, AR has already proven beneficial for educational training and intraoperative MISS applications. We believe that with continued research and advancement of this technology, AR is poised to become a dominant player within the fundamentals of surgical education and MISS operative technique.

Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study describes the benefits of MIS-TLIF (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and compares them with OTLIF (open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). It compares blood loss, length of hospitalization stays (LOS), operation time, and return of the patient to the environment. A total of 250 adults (109 males and 141 females), mean age 59.5 ± 12.6, who underwent MIS-TLIF in the Neurosurgery Clinic (NSC) Ruzomberok, Slovakia, because of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), participated in this retrospective study. Data were obtained from the patients' medical records and from the standardized Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) index questionnaire. To compare ODI in our study sample, we used the Student's Paired Sample Test. To compare the MIS-TLIF and OTLIF approaches, a meta-analysis was conducted. Confidence intervals were 95% CI. The test of homogeneity (Chi-square (Q)) and the degree of heterogeneity (I² test) among the included studies were used. Statistical analyses were two-sided (α = 0.05). All monitored parameters were significantly better in MIS-TLIF group: blood loss (p < 0.001), operation time (p < 0.001), and ODI changes (p < 0.001). LOS (p < 0.042) were close to the significance level. ODI in the study sample decreased by 33.44% points after MIS-TLIF, and it significantly increased as well (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who were satisfied with the surgery they underwent was 84.8%. The study confirmed that the MIS-TLIF method is in general gentler for the patient and allows the faster regeneration of patient's health status compared to OTLIF.

Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) has been gradually applied in clinical practice. UBE has two channels, with good visual field and operating space, and has achieved good results in the treatment of lumbar spine diseases. Some scholars combine UBE with vertebral body fusion to replace traditional open fusion surgery and minimally invasive fusion surgery. The efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, BE-TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) are compared in the efficacy and complications of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search literatures related to BE-TLIF before January 2023, to identify relevant studies, and systematically review all literatures. Evaluation indicators mainly include operation time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies were included in this study; a total of 637 patients were collected, and 710 vertebral bodies were treated. Nine studies showed that there was no significant difference in VAS score, ODI, fusion rate, and complication rate between BE-TLIF and MI-TLIF at the final follow-up after surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that BE-TLIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. BE-TLIF surgery has similar good efficacy to MI-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. And compared with MI-TLIF, it has the advantages of early postoperative relief of low-back pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Cirq Robotic Assistance for Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Placement: Overcoming the Disadvantages of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) techniques have been developed with the goal of reducing approach-related soft-tissue trauma and its associated complications. However, there is still a debate on some of the potential drawbacks of MISS techniques, such as their longer operating times and increased intraoperative radiation. A solution to these disadvantages could be the implementation of new technologies, such as computer-assisted navigation (CAN) and surgical robotics. We compare the standard fluoroscopy MISS technique with our experience with time per screw and X-ray exposure for pedicle screw placement using the Brainlab Cirq passive robotic arm assistance coupled with the Brainlab Curve navigation system.

METHODS

In the Cirq robot-assisted group (Group I), 109 screws were placed in 24 prospectively analyzed patients. In the fluoroscopy-guided group, 108 screws inserted into 20 consecutive patients were analyzed retrospectively (Group II). The duration of surgery, the time to place one screw, the X-ray exposition, and the pedicle screw accuracy for each patient were recorded and reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 217 screws were analyzed. The treated levels ranged from T10 to S1. In Group I, 104 screws were grade A (95.4%) and five were grade B (4.6%). In Group II, 96 screws were grade A (88.89%); ten were grade B (9.26%); one was grade C (0.93%), and one was grade D (0.93%). While the screws placed by using the Cirq system were more accurate overall, there was no statistical significance when the two groups were compared, p = 0.3724. There was no significant difference in radiation exposure between the two groups, p = 0.5482; however the radiation exposure for the surgeon was very limited with the Cirq system. There was a significant reduction in the operation length (p = 0.0183) and the time per screw (p < 0.0001) for Group I.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAN systems and emerging robotic platforms have the potential to diminish the main disadvantages of MISS techniques-longer operation times and X-ray exposure, at least for the surgical team.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Case Series With an Operative Video Using Fluoroscopy-Based Instrument Tracking Guidance

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has inherent limitations, such as the necessity to reposition the patient. To overcome this limitation, the prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion has been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To report clinical and radiographic outcome measures of a series of patients who underwent PTP at our hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who underwent PTP for degenerative lumbar spine disease between September 2019 and August 2021. A thorough analysis of clinical and radiographic outcome measures for these patients was conducted.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in the identification of 15 consecutive patients. Four patients were operated using the assistance of fluoroscopy-based instrument tracking. Overall, the mean follow-up duration was 11.9 ± 7.9 months. Radiographically, the PTP approach resulted in significant postoperative improvement of lumbar lordosis ( P = .03) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis ( P &lt; .005). No significant difference was found postoperatively in other regional sagittal alignment parameters, including pelvic tilt, sacral slope, or pelvic incidence. Clinically, the patients' Oswestry Disability Indices ( P = .002) and Short Form Survey-12 Physical Scores improved significantly ( P = .01). The estimated mean blood loss for patients who underwent the PTP procedure was 137.7 ± 96.4 mL, the mean operative time was 212.5 ± 77.1 minutes, and the mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 1.4 days. One patient each had superficial wound infection, transient paralytic ileus, transient pulmonary embolism, transient urinary retention, or required revision lumbar surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the PTP approach is associated with significant improvement in radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Oblique Lateral Endoscopic Decompression and Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technical Note and Preliminary Results

OBJECTIVE

Adequacy of decompression for oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a real concern in patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). With this in mind, we combined OLIF with spinal endoscopic technique to achieve a solid fusion and an adequate decompression after one operation.

METHODS

This is a technical note. The theoretical basis and operation process of this technique were introduced, and consecutive cases were retrospectively collected. Consecutive patients diagnosed with monosegmental severe LSS (L4/5) and underwent oblique lateral endoscopic decompression and interbody fusion (OLEDIF) from January 2018 to February 2020 were retrospectively collected. Clinical outcomes were assessed by claudication distance, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Secondary indicators included operation time, operative blood loss, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Ten patients were selected for the OLEDIF procedure. They were five women and five men ranging in age from 49 to 75 years (mean age of 63.9 years) and in BMI from 25.4 to 30.2 kg/m² (mean BMI of 27.5 kg/m² ). The preoperative claudication distance was 160.00 ± 68.96 m (range 70-250 m), which was significantly extended on the 3-month and 1-year follow-up (1020.00 ± 407.70 m and 1040.00 ± 416.87 m, respectively). The preoperative VAS score of back pain and radiating leg pain was 5.50 ± 0.97 (range 4-7) and 6.40 ± 0.97 (range 5-8). The score on postoperative month 3 was 1.60 ± 0.52 (range 1-2) and 1.20 ± 0.79 (range 0-2), and the 1-year follow-up score was 1.90 ± 0.74 (range 1-3) and 1.60 ± 0.70 (range 1-3), respectively. The preoperative ODI was 72.23 ± 6.30 (range 64.4-82.2), the 3-month follow-up ODI was 31.12 ± 4.20 (range 24.4-35.6), and the 1-year follow-up ODI was 29.33 ± 5.92 (range 20.0-37.8). Compared with the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the literature, the operation time was not prolonged (189.3 ± 32.5 min vs. 214.9 ± 60.0 min) but the amount of blood loss decreased significantly (113.3 ± 26.7 ml vs. 366.8 ± 298.2 ml). No complications were found except one case presented with dysesthesia of the left leg. Imaging results showed good fusion without cage subsidence during 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

OLEDIF can achieve complete ventral decompression of the spinal canal and solid fusion of the lumbar spine at one time. It is an effective minimally invasive technique for the treatment of monosegmental severe LSS, which is promising and worthy of further clinical practice.

Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF: a propensity score-matched cohort

OBJECTIVE

Local and regional radiographic outcomes following minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus open TLIF remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of local and regional radiographic parameters following MI-TLIF and open TLIF. The authors hypothesized that open TLIF provides greater segmental and global lordosis correction than MI-TLIF.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing MI- or open TLIF for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis was performed. One-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match patients who underwent open TLIF to those who underwent MI-TLIF. Sagittal segmental radiographic measures included segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), foraminal height (FH), percent spondylolisthesis, and cage position. Lumbopelvic radiographic parameters included overall lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Change in segmental or overall lordosis after surgery was considered "lordosing" if the change was > 0° and "kyphosing" if it was ≤ 0°. Student t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare outcomes between MI-TLIF and open-TLIF groups.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients were included in the study, 114 (43%) who underwent MI-TLIF and 153 (57%) who underwent open TLIF, with an average follow-up of 56.6 weeks (SD 23.5 weeks). After PSM, there were 75 patients in each group. At the latest follow-up both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in assessment scores obtained with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the numeric rating scale for low-back pain (NRS-BP), without significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in SL, ADH, and percent corrected spondylolisthesis compared to baseline (p < 0.001). However, the MI-TLIF group experienced significantly larger magnitudes of correction with respect to these metrics (ΔSL 4.14° ± 4.35° vs 1.15° ± 3.88°, p < 0.001; ΔADH 4.25 ± 3.68 vs 1.41 ± 3.77 mm, p < 0.001; percent corrected spondylolisthesis: -10.82% ± 6.47% vs -5.87% ± 8.32%, p < 0.001). In the MI-TLIF group, LL improved in 44% (0.3° ± 8.5°) of the cases, compared to 48% (0.9° ± 6.4°) of the cases in the open-TLIF group (p > 0.05). Stratification by operative technique (unilateral vs bilateral facetectomy) and by interbody device (static vs expandable) did not yield statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and local radiographic parameters, with neutral effects on regional alignment. Surprisingly, in our cohort, change in SL was significantly greater in MI-TLIF patients, perhaps reflecting the effect of operative techniques, technological innovations, and the preservation of the posterior tension band. Taking these results together, no significant overall differences in LL between groups were demonstrated, which suggests that MI-TLIF is comparable to open approaches in providing radiographic correction after surgery. These findings suggest that alignment targets can be achieved by either MI- or open-TLIF approaches, highlighting the importance of surgeon attention to these variables.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

With the increase in life expectancy and consequent aging of the population, degenerative lumbar spine diseases tend to increase its number exponentially. Several treatment options are available to treat degenerative spinal diseases, such as laminectomies, posterior fusions, and interbody fusions, depending on their locations, correction necessities, and surgeon philosophy. With the advance in technology and surgical knowledge, minimally invasive techniques (MIS) arose as a solution to reduce surgical morbidity, while maintaining the same benefits as the traditionally/open surgeries. Several studies investigated the possible advantages of MIS techniques against the traditional open procedures. However, those articles are usually focused only on one technique or on one pathology.

Methods

The electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, and BVS, were systematically reviewed. Only original articles in English or Portuguese were added to the review, the revision was performed following the PRISMA guideline.

Results

Fifty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of the studied outcomes the Length of Stay Odds of complications, Blood Loss, and Surgery costs presented significantly favored MIS approaches, while the Last FUP ODI score, and Surgery Time did not differ among the groups.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive techniques are a remarkably interesting option to traditional open surgeries, as these procedures showed a significant reduction in blood loss, hospitalization time, complications, and surgical costs.

Obesity Does Not Adversely Affect Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Matched Cohort Analysis

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is an established technique for the treatment of degenerative spine disease. The larger body habitus of obese patients increases the intraoperative complexity of MI-TLIF. Therefore, it is unclear whether this procedure is appropriate for this population. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes for obese patients vs nonobese patients undergoing MI-TLIF through a matched cohort analysis. A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent MI-TLIF at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: nonobese (body mass index <30 kg/m²) and obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m²). Each cohort was matched for age, sex, and levels operated. Perioperative data and patient-reported outcomes were compared. Radiographic outcomes were measured at final follow-up. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analyses were performed. A total of 148 patients were included. Of obese patients, 17.6% required revision surgery compared with 16.2% of nonobese patients (P=.826). Both cohorts had a similar proportion of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch correction (P=.780). Mean change in functional outcome scores for each cohort did not differ significantly. Obese patients had clinically minor but statistically significantly greater blood loss and longer operative times than nonobese patients (P<.001). Obese and non-obese patients undergoing MI-TLIF showed no long-term differences in revision rate, radiologic outcome, or functional outcome after long-term follow-up. Obese patients had slightly greater blood loss and longer operative times. Our findings suggest that MI-TLIF is an appropriate alternative to traditional open lumbar fusion for obese patients. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(4):203-208.].

Minimally Invasive Transpedicular Screw Fixation: Review of 152 Cases in a Single Institution. Steep or Shallow Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND

 In this study, we analyze our institutional experience and personal impressions using minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) to describe our learning curve and how experience influenced different parameters of the surgical procedure.

METHODS

 The study was conducted prospectively and included the first consecutive 152 patients treated with MISS techniques. Patient demographics, surgical data, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcome were reviewed. The cohort was divided into consecutive quarters. Comparison between the quarters and timeline analysis were made to assess the learning curve.

RESULTS

 Only percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation was performed in 65 cases, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in 70 cases, and vertebral body replacement in 4 cases. The average blood loss was 113.3, 115, 106.6, and 107.1 mL for each quarter. The average operative time was 155.0, 143.2, 134.5, and 133.8 minutes for the four quarters, whereas the average radiation exposure time was 105.4, 85.3, 46.2, and 45.2 seconds. Differences in the operative time and radiation exposure time between the first to third and the first to fourth quarters were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

 Some advantages of MISS techniques could be observed with the very first cases and were not related significantly with the surgeon's experience with MISS. With the acquisition of more experience, some disadvantages of MISS techniques such as longer operative time and longer X-ray exposure can be substantially reduced. Surgical experience, familiarity of the team with the MISS instrumentation, and good patient selection are crucial for achieving all the benefits of MISS.

Comparison of Long-Term Efficacy of MIS-TLIF Intraoperative Implants in Patients with Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis and degenerative spinal disease are still an unsolvable surgical problem. It is still difficult to solve the complications related to postoperative osteoporosis, such as cage subsidence, displacement, and retraction. Expandable interbody cage is a recent innovation and an increasingly popular alternative to standard static cage. However, the clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF combined with expandable cage for the treatment of osteoporosis has limited reports. The purpose of this paper was to analyze the efficacy of MIS-TLIF with expandable cage in patients with degenerative lumbar disease with osteoporosis. Patients with osteoporosis who received single-level MIS-TLIF and were followed up for at least 1 year were included. The outcome measures are as follows: clinical features, perioperative period, and neurological complications. JOA score and VAS pain score were used to analyze the improvement of patients’ function. Imaging analysis included segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), intervertebral disc height (DH), and the ratio of cage height to preoperative DH (RCD). The final data analysis included 284 patients with osteoporosis. 178 patients used static cages, and 106 patients used expandable cages. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, surgical indexes, and JOA and VAS scores between the two groups. There was no difference in SL or LL between static group and expandable group. There was no significant difference in preoperative DH between the two groups. The RCD in the expansion group was significantly lower than that in the static group. The intraoperative and postoperative sedimentation rate in the static group was significantly higher than that in the expandable group. The use of expandable cages in MIS-TLIF has shown good results for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases with osteoporosis. Through appropriate surgical techniques, the expandable cage can reduce the risk of cage sinking.

Development and Initial Internal Validation of a Novel Classification System for Perioperative Expectations Following Minimally Invasive Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective consecutive clinical cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to develop and provide an initial internal validation of a novel classification system that can help surgeons and patients better understand their postoperative course following the particular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and approach that is utilized.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgeons and patients are often attracted to the option of minimally invasive spine surgery because of the perceived improvement in recovery time and postsurgical pain. A classification system based on the impact of the surgery and surgical approach(es) on postoperative recovery can be particularly helpful.

METHODS

Six hundred thirty-one patients who underwent MIS lumbar/thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine were included. Perioperative outcomes-operative time, estimated blood loss, postsurgical length of stay (LOS), 90-day complications, postoperative day zero narcotic requirement [in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME)], and need for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA).

RESULTS

Postoperative LOS and postoperative narcotic use were deemed most clinically relevant, thus selected as primary outcomes. Type of surgery was significantly associated with all outcomes (P<0.0001), except intraoperative complications. Number of levels for fusion was significantly associated with operative time, in-hospital complications, 24 hours oral MME, and the need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.0001). Number of surgical approaches for lumbar fusion was significantly associated with operative time, 24 hours oral MME, need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.001). Based on these parameters, the following classification system ("Qureshi-Louie classification" for MIS degenerative lumbar surgery) was devised: (1) Decompression-only; (2) Fusion-1 and 2 levels, 1 approach; (3) Fusion-1 level, 2 approaches; (4) Fusion-2 levels, 2 approaches; (5) Fusion-3+ levels, 2 approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a novel classification system and initial internal validation to describe the perioperative expectations following various MIS surgeries in the degenerative lumbar spine. This initial description serves as the basis for ongoing external validation.

Peri-Surgical Inflammatory Profile Associated with Mini-Invasive or Standard Open Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches

BACKGROUND

Different surgical approaches are available for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) to treat disc degeneration. However, a quantification of their invasiveness is lacking, and the definition of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has not been biochemically detailed. We aimed at characterizing the inflammatory, hematological, and clinical peri-surgical responses to different LIF techniques.

METHODS

68 healthy subjects affected by single-level discopathy (L3 to S1) were addressed to MIS, anterior (ALIF, n = 21) or lateral (LLIF, n = 23), and conventional approaches, transforaminal (TLIF, n = 24), based on the preoperative clinical assessment. Venous blood samples were taken 24 h before the surgery and 24 and 72 h after surgery to assess a wide panel of inflammatory and hematological markers.

RESULTS

martial (serum iron and transferrin) and pro-angiogenic profiles (MMP-2, TWEAK) were improved in ALIF and LLIF compared to TLIF, while the acute phase response (C-reactive protein, sCD163) was enhanced in LLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS procedures (ALIF and LLIF) associated with a reduced incidence of post-operative anemic status, faster recovery, and enhanced pro-angiogenic stimuli compared with TLIF. LLIF associated with an earlier activation of innate immune mechanisms than ALIF and TLIF. The trend of the inflammation markers confirms that the theoretically defined mini-invasive procedures behave as such.

Charlson Comorbidity Index: An Inaccurate Predictor of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Fusion Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of research on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and its influence on minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement after minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The objective of this study is to detail the association between the CCI and attaining MCID after MIS TLIF.

METHODS

A prospective surgical registry was retrospectively reviewed for spine surgeries between May 2015 and February 2019. Inclusion criteria were primary or revision, 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF procedures. Patients were stratified based on CCI score: 0 points (no comorbidities), 1-2 points (mild CCI), ≥3 points (moderate CCI). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were assessed by subgroup using appropriate statistical analysis. Subgroups were analyzed with linear regression or χ² tests for continuous or categorical variables, respectively. Subgroup scores, improvement, and MCID achievement were assessed at postoperative timepoints (eg, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-12 Physical Composite Score (PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF).

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included (n = 51 [no comorbidities], n = 73 [mild CCI], and n = 47 [moderate CCI]). Higher CCI patients were older and more likely to be smokers, diabetic, arthritic, hypertensive, or have a malignancy history (P < 0.003). Preoperatively, ODI and PROMIS PF were the only patient-reported outcomes with a significant association by CCI group (P = 0.015 and 0.014). Back pain was the only measure that had a significant association with the CCI subgroup at 1 year for score (P = 0.002) or MCID (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

By 1 year, regardless of the number of comorbidities, a similar proportion of patients undergoing MIS TLIF were able to achieve MCID for visual analog scale leg, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF. Patients with higher comorbidities are not likely to experience a significant difference in symptom improvement. Regardless of CCI score, MIS TLIF can have a significant benefit for patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Text.

Comparative Analysis of Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes Between Conventional Open and Minimally Invasive Scoliosis Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare radiologic and clinical outcomes between conventional open scoliosis surgery (COSS) and minimally invasive scoliosis surgery (MISS) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

METHODS

Forty-nine AIS patients who underwent scoliosis surgery were retrospectively analyzed in 2 groups: the COSS (n = 25) and MISS (n = 24) groups. COSS procedures used monoaxial screws with a rod derotation (RD) maneuver through a long linear incision. In the MISS group, the technique was applied via 2 or 3 incisions of about 3 cm in length, and a muscle-splitting approach and correction were performed using polyaxial screws with an RD maneuver.

RESULTS

In the analysis of the coronal (Cobb angle of the main curve) and sagittal planes (thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis), correction was significantly superior in the COSS group (all P values >0.05). However, in the coronal balance and spinal vertical axis, which are global balance factors, there were no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.331 and P = 0.750). There were significant differences between the COSS and MISS groups in terms of mean hospital stay duration (P < 0.001), operative time (P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), and scar length (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the various Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire scores between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although COSS for AIS was superior for correcting the main curve, MISS was associated with shorter hospitalization, less blood loss, and superior cosmesis as well as providing adequate correction in both the coronal and sagittal planes.

Initial Experience With a Full Endoscopic Facet Fusion in Combination With Endoscopic Interbody Fusion

Background Facet fusion has been described in open and minimally invasive approaches to promote fusion. Our objective is to describe the technique of an endoscopic facet decortication and allograft placement as an adjunct to an interbody fusion. Methodology This was a descriptive analysis of patients who underwent endoscopic interbody fusion combined with facet fusion and percutaneous screw placement. General demographics, clinical presentation, length of stay, follow-up, and outcome were gathered. The technique involves endoscopic access to the Kambin's triangle, discectomy/endplate preparation, expandable cage/allograft insertion, and percutaneous pedicle screw placement. A midline incision was performed, and the endoscope was advanced over the facet joints at the desired level. After removing the soft tissue with grasping forceps, cautery was used to disrupt the facet capsule. An articulating high-speed bur was used to drill inside and over the dorsal surface of the joint. Finally, allograft chips were placed through the endoscope cannula. Results From May 2019 to December 2019, four patients underwent endoscopic interbody fusion. All were female, with a mean age of 67.5 years (SD: 12.7). All had chronic low back pain and radiculopathy associated with Grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Two (50%) of the patients underwent two-level fusion. The median hospital stay was two days. Two (50%) reported improvement of both low back and radiculopathy symptoms. None of the patients had a significant complication or required reoperation in eight months' mean follow-up. Conclusions Facet decortication and allograft placement are feasible using an endoscopic approach in conjunction with interbody fusion.

Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The authors aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) with those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using a microscope.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar spinal fusion has been widely performed for various lumbar spinal pathologies. Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion using a tubular retractor under a microscope is a method of achieving fusion while reducing soft tissue injury. Recently, several studies have reported minimally invasive techniques for lumbar discectomy, decompression, and interbody fusion using biportal endoscopic spinal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 87 patients who underwent single-level TLIF for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis between 2015 and 2018. Thirty-two and 55 patients underwent BE-TLIF (group A) and MI-TLIF (group B), respectively. Visual Analogue Scale scores of the back and leg and Oswestry Disability Index were collected perioperatively.Further, data regarding perioperative complications, including length of hospital stay, time to ambulation, and fusion rate, were collected.

RESULTS

The Visual Analogue Scale score at 2 weeks and 2 months postoperatively was significantly lower in group A (P=0.001). All other clinical scores showed improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The difference in the fusion rates between group A (93.7%) and group B (92.7%) were not significant (P=0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Because BE-TLIF yieldeds lesser early postoperative back pain than did MI-TLIF, it may allow early ambulation and a shorter hospitalization period. BE-TLIF may be a viable alternative to MI-TLIF in patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis with superior clinical results in the early postoperative period.

Retrospective Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Monosegmental Lumbar Fusion, and Impact of Virtual Reality on Surgical Planning and Strategy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Spinal fusion for symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis can be accomplished using an open or minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique. Evaluation of segmental spondylolisthesis and instabilities and review of their therapies are inseparably connected with lumbar tomographic imaging. We analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent MIS or open monosegmental dorsal fusion and compared surgical outcomes along with complication rates. We furthermore evaluated the influence of virtual reality (VR) visualization on surgical planning in lumbar fusion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 Patient files were retrospectively analyzed regarding patient- and disease-related data, operative performance, surgical outcomes, and perioperative surgical complications. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were retrospectively visualized via VR software. A questionnaire evaluated the influence of three-dimensional (3D) VR images versus two-dimensional CT and MRI scans on therapy planning, fusion method, and surgical technique and procedure.

RESULTS

 Overall, 171 patients were included (MIS/open: 90/81). MIS was associated with less blood loss, shorter surgery time and hospital stay, lower complication rates, equivalent long-term patient-reported outcomes, but lower fusion rates and higher late reoperation rates than open surgery. Image presentation using VR significantly influenced the recommended surgical therapies (decompression only/decompression and fusion; p = 0.02), had no significant influence on the recommended fusion method (rigid/dynamic/stand-alone; p = 0.77), and, in cases of rigid fusion, a significant influence on the recommended technique (MIS/open; p = 0.03) and fusion procedure (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

 In patients with monosegmental degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis, MIS fusion was advantageous concerning perioperative complication rates and perioperative surgical outcomes, but disadvantageous regarding fusion and reoperation rates compared to open fusion. 3D-VR-based analysis of sectional images significantly influenced the recommended surgical planning.

Expandable cages increase the risk of intraoperative subsidence but do not improve perioperative outcomes in single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Expandable cages (EXP) are being more frequently utilized in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF). EXP were designed to reduce complications related to neurological retraction, enable better lordosis restoration, and improve ease of insertion, particularly in the advent of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques, however they are exponentially more expensive than the nonexpandable (NE) alternative.

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical results of expandable cages in single level TLIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review at a single institution.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Two hundred and fifty-two single level TLIFs from 2012 to 2018 were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complication rates, and radiographic measures.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent single level TLIF with minimum 1 year follow-up were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complications. Radiographic analysis included pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, segmental lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, disc height restoration, and subsidence ≥2 mm. Statistical analysis included independent t tests and chi-square analysis. For nonparametric variables, Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman partial correlation were utilized. Multivariate regression was performed to assess relationships between surgical variables and recorded outcomes. For univariate analysis significance was set at p<.05. Due to the multiple comparisons being made, significance for regressions was set at p<.025 utilizing Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-two TLIFs between 2012 and 2018 were included, with 152 NE (54.6% female, mean age 59.28±14.19, mean body mass index (BMI) 28.65±5.38, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 2.20±1.89) and 100 EXP (48% female, mean age 58.81±11.70, mean BMI 28.68±6.06, mean CCI 1.99±1.66) with no significant differences in demographics. Patients instrumented with EXP cages had a shorter length of stay (3.11±2.06 days EXP vs. 4.01±2.64 days NE; Z=-4.189, p<.001) and a lower estimated blood loss (201.31±189.41 mL EXP vs. 377.82±364.06 mL NE; Z=-6.449, p<.001). There were significantly more MIS-TLIF cases and bone morphogenic protein (BMP) use in the EXP group (88% MIS, p<.001 and 60% BMP, p<.001) as illustrated in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the EXP and NE groups in rates of radiculitis and neuropraxia. In multivariate regression analysis, EXP were not associated with a difference in perioperative outcomes or complications. Radiographic analyses demonstrated that the EXP group had a lower PI-LL mismatch than the NE cage group at baseline (3.75±13.81° EXP vs. 12.75±15.81° NE; p=.001) and at 1 year follow-up (3.81±12.84° EXP vs. 8.23±12.73° NE; p=.046), but change in regional and segmental alignment was not significantly different between groups. Multivariate regression demonstrated that EXP use was a risk factor for intraoperative subsidence (2.729[1.185-6.281]; p=.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Once technique was controlled for, TLIFs utilizing EXP do not have significantly improved neurologic or radiographic outcomes compared with NE. EXP increase risk of intraoperative subsidence. These results question the value of the EXP given the higher cost.

Impact of Obesity on Complication Rates, Clinical Outcomes, and Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

 Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in obese patients remains a surgical challenge. We aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes and complication rates between obese and nonobese patients who were treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

 The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent MIS-TLIF at a single institution between 2011 and 2014. Patients were classified as obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m²) or nonobese (BMI < 30 kg/m²), according to their BMI. Outcomes assessed were complications, numerical rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 36-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-36) scores.

RESULTS

 The final study group consisted of 71 patients, 24 obese (33.8%, 34.8 ± 3.8 kg/m²) and 47 nonobese (66.2%, 25.4 ± 2.9 kg/m²). Instrumentation failures (13.6 vs. 17.0%), dural tears (17.2 vs. 4.0%), and revision rates (16.7 vs. 19.1%) were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). Perioperative improvements in back pain (4.3 vs. 5.4, p = 0.07), leg pain (3.8 vs. 4.2, p = 0.6), and ODI (13.3 vs. 22.5, p = 0.5) were comparable among the groups and persisted at long-term follow-up. Obese patients had worse postoperative physical component SF-36 scores than nonobese patients (36.4 vs. 42.7, p = 0.03), while the mental component scores were not statistically different (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

 Obese patients can achieve similar improvement of the pain intensity and functional status even at long-term follow-up. In patients with appropriate surgical indications, obesity should not be considered a contraindication for MIS-TLIF surgery.

State of the art advances in minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) can be associated with substantial suffering due to pain and disability. Surgical intervention for achieving neural decompression and restoring physiological spinal alignment has shown to result in significant improvement in pain and disability through patient-reported outcomes. Traditional open approaches involving posterior osteotomy techniques and instrumentation are effective based on clinical outcomes but associated with high complication rates, even in the hands of the most experienced surgeons. Minimally invasive techniques may offer benefit while decreasing associated morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for ASD has evolved over the past 20 years, driven by improved understanding of open procedures along with novel technique development and technologic advancements. Early efforts were hindered due to suboptimal outcomes resulting from high pseudarthrosis, inadequate correction, and fixation failure rates. To address this, multi-center collaborative groups have been established to study large numbers of ASD patients which have been vital to understanding optimal patient selection and individualized management strategies. Different MIS decision-making algorithms have been described to better define appropriate candidates and interbody selection approaches in ASD. The purpose of this state of the review is to describe the evolution of MIS surgery for adult deformity with emphasis on landmark papers, and to discuss specific MIS technology for ASD, including percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation, hyperlordotic grafts, three-dimensional navigation, and robotics.

Minimal invasive management of early revision after minimal invasive posterior lumbar fusion

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spine (MIS) fusion is an increasingly common procedure, with advantages over open approach in the form of minimal dissection and superior early clinical outcome. The frequency of complications is known, but the most appropriate surgical revision for this technique remains unclear.

HYPOTHESIS

The main hypothesis was that early revision surgery, for acute complications after MIS, was possible through mini-invasive approach.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients undergoing MIS has been performed, with or without transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using specific navigation and ancillary. All surgical revisions were done by minimally invasive approach. Preoperative and surgical data, as well as postoperative complications have been analyzed. The primary endpoint was clinical outcome obtained after surgical revision.

RESULTS

Data of 187 patients undergoing MIS procedure at 1-4 levels was analyzed. The rate of early revision (within one month) was 5.3%: 0.5% for infection, 1.6% for compressive hematoma, and 2.1% for misplaced screw. The use of intraoperative navigation decreased the frequency of screw misplacement from 4.5% to 1.4%. The rate of surgical revision was 7.8% for surgeons in their learning curve and 3.6% for experienced surgeons.

DISCUSSION

On these large series, MIS early revision rates were lower than previously reported for conventional fusions. Surgeon's experience in MIS procedures seems to be crucial to decrease revision and complications rates. Hemorrhagic complications led to multidisciplinary discussions and the establishment of a management protocol. Surgical revisions can be performed by minimally invasive techniques, regardless of the indication.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Analysis of Surgical Forces Required to Gain Access Using a Probe for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery via Cadaveric-Based Experiments Towards Use in Training Simulators

INTRODUCTION

Virtual Reality haptic-based surgical simulators for training purposes have recently been receiving increased traction within the medical field. However, its future adoption is contingent on the accuracy and reliability of the haptic feedback.

GOAL

This study describes and analyzes the implementation of a set of haptic-tailored experiments to extract the force feedback of a medical probe used in minimally invasive spinal lumbar interbody fusion surgeries.

METHODS

Experiments to extract linear, lateral and rotational insertion, relaxation and extraction of the tool within the spinal muscles, intervertebral discs and lumbar nerve on two cadaveric torsos were conducted.

RESULTS

Notably, mean force-displacement and torque-angular displacement curves describing the different tool-tissue responses were reported with a maximum force of 6.87 (±1.79) N at 40 mm in the muscle and an initial rupture force through the Annulus Fibrosis of 20.550 (±7.841) N at 6.441 mm in the L₄/L₅ disc.

CONCLUSION

The analysis showed that increasing the velocity of the probe slightly reduced and delayed depth of the muscle punctures but significantly lowered the force reduction due to relaxation. Decreasing probe depth resulted with a reduction to the force relaxation drop. However, varying the puncturing angle of attack resulted with a significant effect on increasing force intensities. Finally, not resecting the thoracolumbar fascia prior to puncturing the muscle resulted with a significant increase in the force intensities.

SIGNIFICANCE

These results present a complete characterization of the input required for probe access for spinal surgeries to provide an accurate haptic response in training simulators.

Reoperation, Readmission, and Discharge Disposition for Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Pathology Treated With Either Open or Minimally Invasive Techniques: A Single-Center Retrospective Review of 1435 Cases

BACKGROUND

Spine surgery has been transformed by the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures. Previous studies agree that MIS has shorter hospitalization and faster recovery time when compared to conventional open surgery. However, the reoperation and readmission rates between the 2 techniques have yet to be well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rate of subsequent revision between MIS and open techniques for degenerative lumbar pathology.

METHODS

A total of 1435 adult patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2016 were included in this retrospective analysis. The rates of need for subsequent reoperation, 30- and 90-d readmission, and discharge to rehabilitation were recorded for both MIS and traditional open techniques. Groups were divided into decompression alone and decompression with fusion.

RESULTS

The rates of subsequent reoperation following MIS and open surgery were 10.4% and 12.2%, respectively (P = .32), which were maintained when subdivided into decompression and decompression with fusion. MIS and open 30-d readmission rates were 7.9% and 7.2% (P = .67), while 90-d readmission rates were 4.3% and 3.6% (P = .57), respectively. Discharge to rehabilitation was significantly lower for patients under 60 yr of age undergoing MIS (1.64% vs 5.63%, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

The use of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar spine pathology does not result in increased reoperation or 30- and 90-d readmission rates when compared to open approaches. Patients under the age of 60 yr undergoing MIS procedures were less likely to be discharged to rehab.

[Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion]

OBJECTIVE

Instrumented fusion of lumbar motion segments using a minimally invasive technique.

INDICATIONS

Degenerative disc disease, segmental degeneration, degenerative spondylolisthesis, isthmic spondylolisthesis, pseudarthrosis, other spinal lumbar instabilities, disc prolapse, revision for failed back surgery syndrome, unilateral neuroforaminal stenosis, facet joint arthrosis.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

High-grade spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grades III/IV, spondyloptosis), bilateral nerve root compression, vertebral fractures, tumors, high-grade spinal instabilities, primary spinal deformities, multilevel pathologies.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Ipsilateral minimally invasive approach using a self-retaining tubular retractor system, partial or complete facetectomy, insertion of pedicle screws, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage insertion preserving nerve roots, fusion, contralateral insertion of pedicle screws using a minimally invasive or percutaneous technique.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Mobilization with physiotherapy, followed by standing plain x‑ray examinations, clinical and radiological follow-up at 6-12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fusion rates >90%, comparable to open TLIF. Complication rates lower than open TLIF. Shorter radiation exposure during surgery, lower blood loss. Less surgical trauma leads to shorter hospitalization time and earlier return-to-work. Oswestry Disability index (ODI) scores and visual analog scale (VAS) scores significantly decreased.

Evolution of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery

Spine surgery has evolved over centuries from first being practiced with Hippocratic boards and ladders to now being able to treat spinal pathologies with minimal tissue invasion. With the advent of new imaging and surgical technologies, spine surgeries can now be performed minimally invasively with smaller incisions, less blood loss, quicker return to daily activities, and increased visualization. Modern minimally invasive procedures include percutaneous pedicle screw fixation techniques and minimally invasive lateral approach for lumbar interbody fusion (i.e., minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, oblique lateral interbody fusion) and midline lumbar fusion with cortical bone trajectory screws. Just as evolutions in surgical techniques have helped revolutionize the field of spine surgery, imaging technologies have also contributed significantly. The advent of computer image guidance has allowed spine surgeons to advance their ability to refine surgical techniques, increase the accuracy of spinal hardware placement, and reduce radiation exposure to the operating room staff. As the field of spine surgery looks to the future, many novel technologies are on the horizon, including robotic spine surgery, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to help improve preoperative planning, improve surgical execution, and optimize patient selection to ensure improved postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction. As more spine surgeons begin incorporating these novel minimally invasive techniques into practice, the field of minimally invasive spine surgery will continue to innovate and evolve over the coming years.

Comparison of Single-Level Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusions Presenting a Learning Curve

Background

Comparison of single-level open and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (O-TLIF and MI-TLIF) of a single surgeon and presentation of his MI-TLIF learning curve in a retrospective observational cohort study.

Methods

27 MI-TLIF and 31 O-TLIF patients, performed between 03/01/2013 and 03/31/2018, were compared regarding the operative time, blood loss, blood transfusion frequency, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and adverse events. An overall comparison of pre- and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) results and Visual Analog Score (VAS) results of low back and leg pain was performed in the case of the two techniques. For a learning curve presentation, the MI-TLIF cases were compared and the optimal operative time was determined.

Results

The gender ratio and age did not differ in the groups. Operative time showed no difference (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (p=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (P=0.88) between the MI-TLIF (161.2 ± 33.7 minutes) and O-TLIF groups (160 ± 33.6 minutes). Intraoperative blood loss was less (

Conclusions

Similar operative time and postoperative quality of life improvement can be achieved by MI-TLIF procedure as with O-TLIF, and additionally LOS and blood loss can be reduced. When comparing parameters, MI-TLIF can be an alternative option for O-TLIF with a similar complication profile. The learning curve of MI-TLIF can be steep, although it depends on the circumstances.

COMPARATIVE RESULTS BETWEEN OPEN AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE FUSION IN LUMBAR DEGENERATIVE DISEASE

ABSTRACT Objective: Lumbar spine fusion is indicated in patients who are refractory to traditional treatment for degenerative disc disease. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and postoperative results of conventional open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in posterior 360° lumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation. Methods: A total of 25 patients underwent MIS and 40 underwent open surgery between 2015 and 2017. Perioperative variables and lumbar and radicular pain values were compared using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) until 12 months after surgery. Results: The MIS cohort presented less blood loss (140 vs 345 ml; p=0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.1 vs 2.2 days; p=0.001), longer operative time (113 vs 94 minutes; p=0.001) and greater X-ray exposure (80 vs 6 seconds; p=0.001), compared to the open surgery group. The MIS cohort showed better results in the ODI and lumbar VAS scores. No significant differences were observed in radicular VAS. Conclusion: MIS surgery showed advantages over the open surgery technique; however, the learning curve should be improved in order to reduce operative time. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective descriptive observational study.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): A review of indications, technique, results and complications

Minimal access surgery has revolutionized most surgical disciplines and spine surgery is no exception. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) was devised to reduce the approach-related morbidity of open TLIF and has flourished in the last decade. With expanding indications, standardization of technique and equipment, publication of more studies on its results and complications being brought to light - an update of the existing knowledge on MI-TLIF is imminent. We provide a review of the indications, technique, results and complications of MI-TLIF while also highlighting its variations and utility in special situations.

Neurologic Injury in Complex Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Staged Multilevel Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MOLIF) Using Hyperlordotic Tantalum Cages and Posterior Fusion Versus Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy (PSO)

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the safety of MOLIF versus PSO.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Complex adult spinal deformity (CASD) represents a challenging cohort of patients. The Scoli-RISK-1 study has shown a 22.18% perioperative risk of neurological injury. Restoration of sagittal parameters is associated with good outcome in ASD. Pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO) is an important technique for sagittal balance in ASD but is associated with significant morbidity. The multilevel oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MOLIF) is an extensile approach from L1 to S1.

METHODS

Single surgeon series from 2007 to 2015. Prospectively collected data. Scoli-RISK-1 criteria were refined to only include stiff or fused spines otherwise requiring a PSO. Roentograms were examined preoperatively and 2 year postoperatively. Primary outcome measure was the motor decline in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) at hospital discharge, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years. Demographics, blood loss, operative time, spinopelvic parameters, and spinal cord monitoring (SCM) events.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight consecutive patients were included in this study, with 34 patients in each Group. Group 1 (MOLIF) had a mean age 62.9 (45-81) and Group 2 (PSO) had a mean age of 66.76 years (47-79); 64.7% female versus PSO 76.5%; Body Mass Index (BMI) Group 1 (MOLIF) 28.05 and Group 2 (PSO) 27.17. Group 1 (MOLIF) perioperative neurological injury was 2.94% at discharge but resolved by 6 weeks. Group 2 (PSO) had five neurological deficits (14.7%) with no recovery by 2 years. There were four SCM events (SCM). In Group 1 (MOLIF), there was one event (2.94%) versus three events (8.88%) in Group 2 (PSO).

CONCLUSION

Staged MOLIF avoids passing neurological structures or retraction of psoas and lumbar plexus. It is safer than PSO in CASD with stiff or fused spines with a lower perioperative neurological injury profile. MOLIF have less SCM events, blood loss, and number of levels fused.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a comparative, literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review and a meta-analysis. Lumbar interbody fusion is a well-established surgical procedure for treating several spinal disorders. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was initially introduced in the early 1980s. To reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open TLIF (OTLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MITLIF) was developed. We aimed to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review.

METHODS

We searched the online database PubMed (2005-2017), which yielded an initial 194 studies. We first searched the articles' abstracts. Based on our inclusion criteria, we excluded 162 studies and included 32 studies: 18 prospective, 13 retrospective, and a single randomized controlled trial. Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, radiation exposure time, complication rate, and pain scores (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index) for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis for all outcomes showed reduced blood loss (P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001) for MITLIF compared with OTLIF, but with increased radiation exposure time with MITLIF (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in operative time between techniques (P = 0.78). The complication rate was lower with MITLIF (11.3%) vs. OTLIF (14.2%), but not statistically significantly different (P = 0.05). No significant differences were found in visual analogue scores (back and leg) and Oswestry Disability Index scores between techniques, at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

MITLIF and OTLIF provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes. MITLIF had less tissue injury, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. MITLIF is also a safe alternative in obese patients and, in experienced hands, can also be used safely in select cases of spondylodiscitis even with epidural abscess. MITLIF is also a cost-saving procedure associated with reduced hospital and social costs. Long-term studies are required to better evaluate controversial items such as operative time.

Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and bilateral minimally invasive surgery (MIS) Wiltse approach TLIF (Wil-TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Several studies have compared open TLIF to MIS TLIF; however, comparing the techniques using a large cohort of one-level TLIFs has not been fully explored.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of patients undergoing a single-level primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2012 and 2017. The cases were categorized as Open TLIF (traditional midline exposure including lateral exposure of transverse processes) or bilateral paramedian Wiltse TLIF approach. Differences between groups were assessed by t tests.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent one-level primary TLIF (116 O-TLIF, 111 Wil-TLIF). There was no difference in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), or body mass index (BMI) between groups. Wil-TLIF had the lowest estimated blood loss (EBL; 197 vs. 499 mL O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), length of stay (LOS; 2.7 vs. 3.6 days O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), overall complication rate (12% vs. 24% O-TLIF, P = 0.015), minor complication rate (7% vs. 16% O-TLIF, P = 0.049), and 90-day readmission rate (1% vs. 8% O-TLIF, P = 0.012). Wil-TLIF was associated with the higher fluoroscopy time (83 vs. 24 seconds O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001). There was not a significant difference in operative time, intraoperative or neurological complications, extubation time, reoperation rate, or infection rate.

CONCLUSION

In comparing Wiltse MIS TLIF to Open TLIF, the minimally invasive paramedian Wiltse approach demonstrated the lowest EBL, LOS, readmission rates, and complications, but longer fluoroscopy times when compared with the traditional open approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Predictive Factors and Rates of Fusion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Utilizing rhBMP-2 or Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Background

Several fusion adjuncts exist to enhance fusion rates during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). The objective of this study was to compare fusion rates in patients undergoing MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or cellularized bone matrix (CBM).

Methods

We conducted a single surgeon retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or CBM placed in an interbody cage. Single and multilevel procedures were included. Fusion was assessed on computed tomography scans at 12-month follow-up by an independent, blinded, board-certified neuroradiologist. Fusion rates and rate of revision surgery were compared with a Fisher exact test between the 2 groups. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify patient factors that were predictive of radiographic nonunion after MI-TLIF.

Results

A total of 93 fusion levels in 78 patients were reviewed. Thirty-nine patients received CBM, and 39 patients received rhBMP-2. The patients receiving rhBMP-2 were older on average (61.4 vs 55.6, P = .03). The overall fusion rate was 68% in the CBM group (32/47 levels) and 78% in the rhBMP-2 group (36/46) (P = .35). Only preoperative hypertension was predictive of radiographic nonunion (odds ratio = 3.5, P = .05). There were 3 smokers in the CBM group and 4 smokers in the BMP group, and 1 in each group experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis. A total of 4 patients, 3 in the CBM group and 1 in the BMP group (P = .61), required revision for symptomatic pseudarthrosis. All of these patients had a single-level index procedure.

Conclusions

There were no differences in radiographic fusion and rate of revision surgery in patients who underwent MI-TLIF with either rhBMP-2 or CBM as fusion adjuncts.

Level of Evidence

3.

Clinical Relevance

Both rhBMP-2 and CBMs can be used as effective fusion adjuncts without any clear advantage of one over the other.

Lumbar Interbody Fusions for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Review of Techniques, Indications, and Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN

Broad narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

To review and summarize the current literature on the outcomes, techniques, and indications of lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A thorough review of peer-reviewed literature was performed on the outcomes, techniques, and indications of lumbar interbody fusions in degenerative spondylolisthesis.

RESULTS

A number of studies have found similar results between interbody fusions and posterolateral fusion in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis. There is some evidence that suggests that interbody fusion may be a useful adjunct in the setting of unstable degenerative spondylolisthesis. The number of options for interbody fusions has quickly expanded. Initially, interbody fusions were accomplished via an anterior approach. Posterior and transforaminal interbody fusions are 2 options that accomplish an interbody fusion without the morbidity of an anterior approach. Over the past decade, minimally invasive options including extreme lateral, oblique, and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusions have gained popularity.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar interbody fusion can be a useful tool in the setting of unstable degenerative spondylolisthesis. A number of technique options, both open and minimally invasive, are available to accomplish an interbody fusion. The literature to this date does not support a clear benefit of one technique over others in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Management of symptomatic degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis

Degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis is the most common form of spondylolisthesis.

The majority of patients are asymptomatic and do not require surgical intervention.

Symptomatic patients present with a combination of lower back pain, radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication and may warrant surgery if non-operative measures fail.

There is widespread controversy regarding the indications for surgery and appropriate treatment strategies for patients with this type of spondylolisthesis.

This article provides a comprehensive evidence-based review of the available literature to support the management of degenerative low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:620-631. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180020.

A 3-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Adjacent Segment Disk Degeneration Induced by Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion After Pedicle Screw Fixation

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective treatment of upper lumbar intervertebral disk herniation. However, its clinical efficacy for adjacent segment disk degeneration (ASDD) remains undefined. Therefore, the biomechanical evaluation of ASDD caused by TLIF after pedicle screw fixation (PSF) was explored via a 3-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis.

METHODS

Computed tomography images of a healthy male adult volunteer were used in this study. A L3-4 3D finite element model (model) was successfully constructed using Pro/E software, which was also used to establish the L4-5 of the TLIF, PSF, and PSF + TLIF models. Under the same loading conditions, the protrusion and retraction of the adjacent intervertebral disk and the stress distribution of the annulus fibrosis, facet joint, and articular process in the TLIF, PSF, and PSF + TLIF models were all compared.

RESULTS

Protrusion and retraction of the adjacent intervertebral disk were more notable in the PSF + TLIF model than in the PSF model under the same loading conditions. The stress of the annulus fibrosis of the PSF + TLIF model was stronger relative to that of the PSF model under flexion, extension, or lateral bending. The stress of the articular process of the PSF + TLIF model was also stronger than that of the PSF model under extension or lateral bending.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that TLIF may aggravate ASDD after PSF. Furthermore, the findings provided in this report represent the theoretic basis for the clinical analysis of ASDD caused by TLIF after PSF.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Fusion Is More Effective Than Open Fusion: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of minimally invasive spinal fusion in comparison to open fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis or spondylosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was conducted as a meta-analysis of all estimates from studies that were selected after comprehensive literature search by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 745 articles, nine prospective cohort studies were identifed. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of study design, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. Greater Oswestry Disability Index score improvement [weighted mean difference (WMD), 3.2; 95% confdence interval (CI), 1.5 to 5.0; p=0.0003] and a lower infection rate (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.9; p=0.02) were observed in the minimally invasive group (low-quality evidence). The minimally invasive group had less blood loss (WMD, 269.5 mL; 95% CI, 246.2 to 292.9 mL; p<0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD, 1.3 days; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5 days, p<0.0001), and longer operation time (WMD, 21.0 minutes; 95% CI, 15.9 to 26.2 minutes; p<0.0001) and radiation exposure time(WMD, 25.4 seconds; 95% CI, 22.0 to 28.8 seconds, p<0.0001) than the open group (low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences in pain improvement, fusion rate, complications, or subsequent surgeries between the two treatment groups (low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Although present findings are limited by insufficient evidence and there is a lack of adequately powered high-quality randomized controlled trials to address this gap in evidence, our results support that minimally invasive lumbar fusion is more effective than open fusion for adult spondylolisthesis and other spondylosis in terms of functional improvement, reducing infection rate, and decreasing blood loss and hospital stay.

The expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - Two years follow-up

Study Design

This was a retrospective, observational study.

Objectives

We hypothesize that the expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage achieves satisfactory clinical outcomes while allowing for safe placement, improvement, and maintenance of foraminal and disc dimensions at 24 months postsurgery with low risk of cage migration, subsidence, and nerve injury.

Methods

TLIF with expandable cages was performed in 54 patients (62 levels) over a 24-month-period using open midline or minimally invasive surgery techniques with placement of Globus Caliber, Rise, or Altera expandable cages. All patients underwent clinical and radiological assessment at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1, and 2 years postoperatively. Clinical outcome was measured by Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog pain score for both back and leg (visual analog scores [VASs]). Radiological assessment was done by X-ray standing lateral position.

Results

There were significant clinical improvements in ODI, VAS leg, and VAS back at all postoperative time points. Disc height, foraminal height, focal Cobb angle, and global Cobb angle were significantly increased and maintained at all time points for 24 months (P < 0.001). Dural tear occurred in one patient (1.9%). There were neither intra- or postoperative neurological complications nor cage subsidence nor migration.

Conclusions

These preliminary results indicate that the use of an expandable interbody cage achieves good clinical outcomes by improving and maintaining foraminal dimensions and disc height with minimal complication rate.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Versus Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Effect on Return to Work, Narcotic Use, and Quality of life

BACKGROUND

Direct lateral (DLIF) and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusions have been shown to produce satisfactory clinical outcomes with significant reduction in pain and functional disability. Despite their increasing use in complex spinal deformity surgeries, there is a paucity of data comparing outcome measures, which this study addresses.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, comparative study of patients who underwent minimally invasive, 1-level TLIF or DLIF between 2013 and 2015. Only patients 18 years and older were included. Preoperative and demographic variables were collected, and clinical outcome measures were compared between cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 46 patients were included (DLIF: 17 patients; TLIF: 29 patients). Preoperatively, there was no difference in visual analog scale pain score or Oswestry Disability Index. Overall, there was a significant improvement in the postoperative visual analog scale score and Oswestry Disability Index in the separate cohorts, without significant difference when compared. The duration of postoperative narcotic use was similar in both cohorts (DLIF: 4.8 ± 4.7 months vs. TLIF: 5.2 ± 5.1 months, P = 0.82). Significantly more patients in DLIF cohort were cleared for work after surgery. Patients who underwent MIS TLIF had a significantly longer time to return to work (7.1 ± 4.8 months) compared with patients undergoing DLIF (2.3 ± 1.3, P = 0.006). There was a greater incidence of reoperation in the TLIF cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Both MIS TLIF and DLIF provide long-term improvement in pain andfunctional outcomes, with an overall reduction in postoperative narcotic requirement. However, there was a significantly longer time to return to work and a greater incidence of reoperation in the TLIF cohort compared with the patients who underwent DLIF.

Radiographic and clinical outcomes following MIS-TLIF in patients with adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from adult lumbar degenerative scoliosis (ALDS) are commonly complicated with advanced age, osteoporosis, cardiopulmonary insufficiency, and some other medical comorbidity. Therefore, the traditional open surgery can lead to high rate of postoperative complications. The purposes of this study were to introduce our experiences and explore the efficacy and feasibility of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of patients with ALDS.

METHODS

From January 2008 to January 2014, a retrospective study of 22 patients with ALDS treated with MIS-TLIF was followed up at least 2 years. All patients suffered from one-level lumbar stenosis, and the nerve root block was performed to make sure the exact level. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and at the time of 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean visual analog scale (VAS) back pain scores decreased from 6.2 ± 1.8 preoperatively to 2.2 ± 0.7 at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.05), and the mean VAS leg pain scores decreased from 8.2 ± 0.7 preoperatively to 1.4 ± 1.4 at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.05). The Oswestry Disability Index score improved from 62.4 ± 16.1% preoperatively to 24.2 ± 9.3% at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.05). The average lumbar curve was 20.7° ± 7.0° preoperatively and 12.7° ± 7.1° at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.05). The lumbar lordosis changed from - 39.5° ± 13.6° to - 43.6° ± 10.6° at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.05). Solid fusion was achieved in all patients.

CONCLUSION

The technique of MIS-TLIF can be used to treat the patients with ALDS whose symptom is mainly from one-level lumbar stenosis, achieving favorable clinical outcomes and good fusion, with less blood loss and complications.

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Analyzing Internet-based Education Material

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the content of information available on the Internet regarding minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patients look to the Internet for quick and accessible information on orthopedic procedures to help guide their personal decision making process regarding the care they receive. However, the quality of internet-based orthopedic education material varies significantly with respect to accuracy and readability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The top 50 results were generated from each of 3 search engines (Google, Yahoo!, and Bing) using the search term "minimally invasive spine surgery." Results were categorized by authorship type and evaluated for their description of key factors such as procedural benefits, risks, and techniques. Comparisons between search engines and between authorship types were done using the Freeman-Halton extension for the Fisher exact test. The content of websites certified by Health on the Net Foundation (HONcode) was compared with those not HONcode certified.

RESULTS

Of the 150 websites and videos, only 26% were authored by a hospital or university, whereas 50% were by a private physician or clinic. Most resources presented some benefits of MISS (84%, 126/150), but only 17% presented risks of the procedure (26/150). Almost half of all resources described the technique of MISS, but only 27% had thorough descriptions that included visual representations while 26% failed to describe the procedure. Only 12 results were HONcode certified, and 10 (83%) of these were authored by a medical industry company.

CONCLUSIONS

Internet-based resources on MISS provide inconsistent content and tend to emphasize benefits of MISS over risks.

Minimally invasive spine surgery for degenerative spine disease and deformity correction: a literature review

During the last two decades, minimally invasive techniques and instruments in spine surgery have undergone serious development in all fields. Specific advantages of these minimally invasive methods have put them forward in spine surgery in recent times. Preservation of important anatomical structures of the spine is a major factor for the evolution of these procedures. The lower prevalence of complications and faster rehabilitation of patients are some of the advantages of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Due to the increasing use of minimally invasive methods in the clinical practice worldwide, there is a strong need for clarification of basic principles, tips and tricks, complications, and clinical outcomes. This review is an effort to provide a better understanding of some of these procedures.

Clinical and Radiologic Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery With Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of 452 Patients From a Single Center

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospective data for parallel, consecutive series of patients (Level III).

OBJECTIVE

Compare clinical results and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open techniques for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Minimally invasive techniques allow transforaminal exposure with decreased soft tissue disruption, but the question remains whether surgical and functional outcomes are equivalent to open techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 452 1 or 2-level TLIF patients at a single institution between 2002 and 2008 were analyzed. A total of 148 were MIS patients and 304 were open. Operative time, estimated blood loss, infection rate, and hospital length of stay were recorded. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog (VAS) pain scores were documented preoperatively and postoperatively. Fusion was assessed radiologically at a minimum of 1 year follow-up.

RESULTS

There were proportionally more 2-level than 1-level procedures in the open group compared with the MIS group; there were more Workers' Compensation patients among 1-level procedures than 2-level. There were more Spondylolisthesis patients and fewer Degenerative Disk Disease patients among one-level procedures compared with 2-level. Blood loss and operative time were lower in the MIS group. Length of hospital stay in the MIS cohort was shorter compared with the open cohort. There were 3 deep wound infections in the open cohort. ODI and VAS (leg and back) scores improved in both groups at 1 year compared with preoperative scores and did not differ between MIS and open cohorts. Fusion rate was similar for both groups (91% overall). One-level procedures and BMP use were associated with higher fusion rate, regardless of approach.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS TLIF produces comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes to open TLIF with the benefits of decreased intraoperative blood losses, shorter operative times, shorter hospital stays, and fewer deep wound infections.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery Compared to Open Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation and Fusion

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative spine disease is increasingly common. There are many spinal fusion techniques used to treat degenerative spine disease. This study aims to compare the functional outcome of open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technique in posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion in degenerative spine disease and to evaluate the perioperative outcome and complications between MIS and open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational cross-sectional study conducted on all degenerative spine disease patients who underwent both methods of posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion from 2010 to 2014 by the Orthopedic and Neurosurgery Department, Sarawak General Hospital. The analyzed variables were method of surgery and the levels involved, demographic data, estimated blood loss, duration of operation, length of hospitalization, visual analog scale of back pain and radicular pain preoperative, postoperative 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and functional outcome.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-two patients underwent posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion from 2010 to 2014. Seventy patients were subjected to MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and 52 open TLIF. Total 89 patients underwent single level of lumbar fusion with sixty patients in MIS group and 29 in open surgeries. MIS TLIF has less estimated blood loss and shorter hospitalization and longer operation time compared to open TLIF, which were statistically significance. MIS TLIF has statistically significance better functional outcome based on Oswestry disability index, Modified NASS score, and RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0 score. Complications such as infection, new onsets of neurological, and dural tear are equal in both methods of surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that MIS has better functional outcome compared to open TLIF with shorter hospitalization, faster return to work, and less estimated blood loss.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has been increasingly advocated during the last decade with new studies being reported every year. Minimally invasive spine procedures, such as minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), have been introduced to reduce approach-related muscle trauma, to minimise blood loss, and to achieve faster wound healing, quicker ambulation and earlier patient discharge.

METHODS

The aim of this article was to give a comprehensive review of the available English literature comparing open TLIF with MI-TLIF techniques published or available online between 1990 and 2014 as identified by an electronic database search on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed . Fourteen relevant studies comparing MI-TLIF and open TLIF cohorts could be identified.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

MI-TLIF seems to be a valid alternative to open TLIF. Both methods yield good clinical results with similar improvements of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) on follow-up. There seems to be no significant differences in clinical outcome and fusion rates on comparison. These results are consistent throughout all reported studies in this review. The most pronounced benefits of MI-TLIF are a significant reduction of blood loss, shorter lengths of hospital stay (LOHS) and lower surgical site infection rates. On the downside, MI-TLIF seems to be associated with significantly higher intraoperative radiation doses, a shallow learning curve, at least in the beginning, longer operating times and potentially more frequent implant failures/cage displacements and revision surgeries.