Risk factors for spinal subdural hematoma after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): a multivariate analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal subdural hematoma (SSH) is a rare cause of compression of the neutral elements of the spinal cord. However, little is known about the presentation of acute SSH after lumbar spine surgery. The reason for this may be that symptomatic SSH occurs rarely and is not given enough attention by spine surgeons. Currently, the decision to perform MRI postoperatively is more dependent on surgeon preference; therefore, no high-quality studies have been published. Our team reports our experience in the diagnosis and management of SSH after lumbar decompression and fusion surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 215 patients who underwent routine MRI following minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) between 2020-01-01 and 2022-06-30. The patients were divided into SSH group (17 cases) and non-SSH group (198 cases) according to the occurrence of SSH. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify relevant risk factors that increase the risk of SSH postoperatively.

RESULTS

None of the patients presented with serious neurologic symptoms, such as lower extremity paralysis or cauda equina syndrome that required emergency hematoma debridement. SSH was found in 17 (7.9%) patients and non-SSH in 198 (92.1%). Factors affecting SSH were presence of hypertension, presence of diabetes and postoperative anticoagulant therapy. The significantly independent risk factor of postoperative SSH were diabetes (P = 0.008, OR: 6.988) and postoperative anticoagulant therapy (P = 0.003, OR: 8.808).

CONCLUSIONS

SSH after MI-TLIF is not a rare condition, with generally no requirement of emergency evacuation. Comprehensive anti-symptomatic treatment could achieve satisfactory results. Diabetes mellitus and postoperative anticoagulant therapy are independent risk factors for SSH. Spine surgeons should hold applicability of the use of anticoagulants after lumbar surgery.

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.

OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases comprehensively from inception to March 2022. The data were extracted from included studies, including operation indications, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes. Random or fixed-effects models were used in all meta-analyses according to the between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies, including 2,125 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our study found similar disk height, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index(ODI) between the two groups. However, the OLIF showed an advantage in restoring lumbar lordotic angle compared with MI-TLIF, with the pooled mean change of 17.73° and 2.61°, respectively. Additionally, the operative time and blood loss in the OLIF group appeared to be less compared with the MI-TLIF group. Regarding complications, the rates of the two groups were similar (OLIF 14.0% vs. MI-TLIF 10.0%), but the major complications that occurred in these two procedures differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

The results of disk height, length of hospital stay, VAS, and ODI between the OLIF and MI-TLIF groups were similar. And the OLIF was superior in restoring lumbar lordotic angle, operative time, and blood loss. However, the OLIF group's complication rate was higher, although not significantly, than that in the MI-TLIF group.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Compared with Open TLIF for Acute Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Retrospective Single-Center Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES

In a retrospective study, we sought to compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of minimally invasive (MI) and open (O) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of cauda equina syndrome (CES) caused by lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

In total, 116 patients with CES associated with disc herniation underwent decompression and stabilization surgery from January 2005 to January 2020 in a single-center study, and data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the O-TLIF and the MI-TLIF group. The perioperative clinical data and MRI assessment were used to assess the efficacy of the respective surgical methods preoperatively and with a minimum follow-up of 30 months.

RESULTS

As expected, the O-TLIF group had statistically significantly longer surgery times and hospital stay, more bleeding, and perioperative surgical complications than the MI-TLIF group. At a minimum follow-up period of 30 months, the MI-TLIF group had significantly better Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and Short-Form-36, and neurologic CES symptoms than the O-TLIF group. The postoperative MRIs revealed a statistically significant difference in the multifidus muscle area in MI group compared with the O group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute CES caused by disc herniation, MI-TLIF, with decreased disruption of paravertebral tissues and postoperative pain syndrome, results in earlier mobilization and rehabilitation with better long-term clinical outcomes compared with O-TLIF.

Does loss of spondylolisthesis reduction impact clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is a common operative approach to address degenerative lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis which has failed nonoperative care. Compared to open TLIF, MI-TLIF relies to a greater extent on indirect decompression resulting in a heightened awareness of spondylolisthesis reduction among MI surgeons. To what extent intraoperative reduction is achieved as well as the rate and clinical impact of loss or reduction and slip recurrence remain unknown.

PURPOSE

To determine the rate and clinical impact of slip recurrence after MI-TLIF with expandable cage technology STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective Cohort Study PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using an articulating, expandable cage OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back/leg pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12), and PROMIS Physical Function (PF) METHODS: Patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis using articulating, expandable cages from 2017 to 2019 were retrospectively studied. Lateral radiographs were reviewed and evaluated for the presence or absence of spondylolisthesis preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at follow-up times including 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Spondylolisthesis was measured from the posterior inferior corner of the cephalad vertebra to the posterior superior corner of the caudal vertebra, with any measurement >1 mm classified as spondylolisthesis, and Meyerding grade was noted. Intraoperative reduction was measured, and loss of reduction was defined as >1 mm increase in spondylolisthesis comparing follow-up imaging to intraoperative films. PROMs were recorded at the preoperative and follow-up time points. Fusion was assessed at 1 year postoperatively via CT.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients and 70 levels were included, with mean age 59.8 years (SD,13.8). 19 levels (27.1%) had complete reduction intraoperatively, 40 (57.1%) had partial reduction, and 11 (15.7%) had no reduction. Of the 30 levels with loss of reduction (50.8%), 20 (66.7%) occurred by 2 weeks postoperatively and 28 (93.3%) occurred by 12 weeks postoperatively. At 6 months, there were significant differences between those who had loss of reduction and those who did not in VAS back pain (3.0 vs. 0.9, p = .017) and SF-12 PCS (41.5 vs. 50.0, p = .035), but no differences were found between the groups for any instruments at any other time points. The overall fusion rate was 82.1% (32/39) at 1 year postoperatively. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the loss of reduction (16/20) and no loss of reduction (20/23) groups. Patients with loss of reduction had no difference in reoperation rate (1/28) compared to those without loss of reduction (2/24).

CONCLUSIONS

While a majority of patients demonstrated reduction intraoperatively, 51% had loss of reduction, most commonly in the acute postoperative period. There were few differences in PROMs between patients who had loss of reduction and those who did not, suggesting that radiographic loss of reduction after MI-TLIF in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis may not be clinically meaningful.

Does a high BMI affect the outcome of minimally invasive TLIF? A retrospective study of 207 patients

PURPOSE

We investigated whether a high Body Mass Index (BMI) affects the outcomes following Minimally Invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar pathologies.

METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken to include patients operated between January 2016 and January 2020 with at least one-year follow-up. Various preoperative and demographic parameters were recorded and the patients were classified into normal, overweight and obese based on the BMI. The operative and outcome measures used for assessment were surgical time, blood loss, number of levels operated upon, skin incision length, day of independent mobilisation, total hospital stay including ICU stay, return to work and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Attainment of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the scores was calculated. Multivariate analyses were done to assess the effect of BMI on different parameters.

RESULTS

Blood loss and postoperative ICU stay were found to be higher in the obese patients. However, the other variables were comparable. VAS-BP, VAS-LP and ODI scores were significantly improved in all the patients with no inter-group variability. The MCID attainment was also similar. The satisfaction rating at 1-year and willingness for surgery again for similar disease was also similar. The overall complication rate was 14.9% and was comparable among the groups. Multivariate analyses revealed no significant association between BMI and various parameters.

CONCLUSION

In patients treated by MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spine pathology, BMI is not a factor that negatively affects the functional and clinical outcomes.

Perioperative Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopically Guided Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgical systems have been developed to improve spine surgery accuracy. Studies have found significant reductions in screw revision rates and radiation exposure with robotic assistance compared with open surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare the perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted (RA) and fluoroscopically guided (FG) minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

The present retrospective cohort study analyzed all patients with lumbar degenerative disease who had undergone MI-TLIF by a single surgeon from July 2017 to March 2020. One group had undergone FG MI-TLIF and one group had undergone RA MI-TLIF.

RESULTS

Of the 101 patients included in the present study, 52 had undergone RA MI-TLIF and 49, FG MI-TLIF. We found no statistically significant differences in the operative time (RA, 241 ± 69.3 minutes; FG, 246.2 ± 56.3 minutes; P = 0.681). The mean radiation time for the RA group was 32.8 ± 28.8 seconds, and the mean fluoroscopy dose was 31.5 ± 30 mGy. The RA radiation exposure data were compared with similar data for the FG MI-TLIF group in a previous study (59.5 ± 60.4 mGy), with our patients' radiation exposure significantly lower (P = 0.035). The postoperative complications and rates of surgical revision were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results have demonstrated that RA MI-TLIF provides perioperative outcomes comparable to those with FG MI-TLIF. A reduced radiation dose to the patient was observed with RA compared with FG MI-TLIF. No differences were noted between the RA and FG cohorts in operative times, complication rates, revision rates, or length of stay.

Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease

BACKGROUND

The effects of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) have not been compared by a meta-analysis. The present study aimed to summarize the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of related studies and report the outcomes of OLIF and MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. The radiographic outcomes measures included disc height, segmental lordotic angle, lumbar lordotic angle, and fusion. The clinical and functional outcomes included operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale, and Oswestry disability index. Data pooling and meta-analysis with the random effects model were performed to evaluate the results.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies met the inclusion criteria. Similar changes in terms of disc height, segmental lordotic angle, lumbar lordotic angle, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, and radiological evidence of fusion of >90% were observed between the 2 groups. The OLIF group showed less operative blood loss and operative time. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 9.5% and 19.9% for the OLIF group and 3.5% and 8.5% for the MI-TLIF group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The radiographic and functional outcomes and length of hospital stay were similar between the 2 groups. The OLIF group showed advantages in operative blood loss and operative time; however, the incidence of complications in this technique was greater than that in the MI-TLIF group.

Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present prospective study is to evaluate whether the touted advantages of minimal invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) translate into superior, equal, or inferior outcomes as compared to open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF). This is the first study from the Indian subcontinent prospectively comparing the outcomes of MI-TLIF and O-TLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive cases of open and MI-TLIF were prospectively followed up. Single-level TLIF procedures for spondylolytic and degenerative conditions (degenerative spondylolisthesis, central disc herniations) operated between January 2011 and January 2013 were included. The pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, length of hospital stay, operative time, radiation exposure, quantitative C-reactive protein (QCRP), and blood loss were compared between the two groups. The parameters were statistically analyzed (using IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics version 17).

RESULTS

129 patients underwent TLIF procedure during the study period of which, 71 patients (46 MI-TLIF and 25 O-TLIF) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, a further 10 patients were excluded on account of insufficient data and/or no followup. The mean followup was 36.5 months (range 18-54 months). The duration of hospital stay (O-TLIF 5.84 days + 2.249, MI-TLIF 4.11 days + 1.8, P < 0.05) was shorter in MI-TLIF cases. There was less blood loss (open 358.8 ml, MI 111.81 ml, P < 0.05) in MI-TLIF cases. The operative time (O-TLIF 2.96 h + 0.57, MI-TLIF 3.40 h + 0.54, P < 0.05) was longer in MI group. On an average, 57.77 fluoroscopic exposures were required in MI-TLIF which was significantly higher than in O-TLIF (8.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the improvement in ODI and VAS scores in MI-TLIF and O-TLIF groups. The change in QCRP values preoperative and postoperative was significantly lower (P < 0.000) in MI-TLIF group than in O-TLIF group, indicating lesser tissue trauma.

CONCLUSION

The results in MI TLIF are comparable with O-TLIF in terms of outcomes. The advantages of MI-TLIF are lesser blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lesser tissue trauma, and early mobilization. The challenges of MI-TLIF lie in the steep learning curve and significant radiation exposure. The ultimate success of TLIF lies in the execution of the procedure, and in this respect the ability to achieve similar results using a minimally invasive technique makes MI-TLIF an attractive alternative.