Prospective Randomized Comparison of Minimally Invasive Tlif versus Open Tlif: Clinical Effectiveness and Restoration of Working Capacity in Railway Workers

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and restoration of working capacity after MI (minimally invasive)-TLIF and O (open)-TLIF in railway workers with lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

83 patients, who were indicated for two-level lumbar decompression and fusion were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 1 (n = 44) had MI-TLIF procedure and group 2 (n = 39) had O-TLIF procedure. The functional status was assessed using SF-36, ODI and VAS for back and leg pain, preoperatively, at discharge, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. MRI and CT were obtained 1-year follow-up. The percentage of patients who returned to work at 1-year, work intensity and the time to return to work post-operatively were analyzed.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, the MI-TLIF group had significantly better ODI, VAS and SF-36 scores compared to the O-TLIF group. The postoperative MRIs revealed a statistically significantly less multifidus muscle atrophy in the MI group compared to the Open group. At 1-year follow-up, a comparable fusion ratio between MI group and Open group was recorded. After MI-TLIF procedure, depending on the workload, patients had a statistically significantly earlier return to work (P < .05) and statistically significantly higher return to work rate compared with the O-TLIF group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of two-level MI-TLIF in railway workers has made it possible to significantly improve long-term clinical results, reduce the risk of surgical complications, muscle atrophy and time to return to work compared to O-TLIF.

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare clinical and radiologic parameters between minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF.

METHODS

Data of 145 patients who underwent single- or double-level TLIF procedures with an open (n = 76) or a MIS (n = 69) technique were analyzed. Average operation time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were compared between open TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Improvement in clinical scores was analyzed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in both groups and statistically compared using t tests. Radiologic parameters, such as lumbar lordosis, focal lordosis at the index level, and pelvic incidence (PI), were calculated at preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up for comparison. The differences in improvement between open and MIS groups were analyzed using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 35.8 ± 15.4 months in open TLIF and 37.9 ± 14.4 months in MIS-TLIF. The average blood loss and operation times were higher and hospital stay was less in MIS-TLIF compared to open TLIF. VAS scores were improved from preoperative (8.5 ± 0.6) to postoperative (2.1 ± 0.8) and preoperative (8.4 ± 0.8) to postoperative (2.0 ± 0.7) in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively (P < .0001), and ODI scores were improved from preoperative (55.2 ± 5.2) to postoperative (22.5 ± 4.3) and preoperative (56.7 ± 4.9) to postoperative (22.0 ± 5.0) in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively (P < .0001). Similarly, there were significant improvements in lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis at the index level with a difference of 3.9° and 2.5°, respectively, in open TLIF and 4.0° and 2.9°, respectively, in MIS-TLIF. However, there were no differences in PI in both groups. There were 9 (11.8%) and 9 (13%) complications encountered in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively. Two patients from open TLIF and 5 from MIS-TLIF had to undergo revision surgeries without any statistical difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Open TLIF and MIS-TLIF are equally efficient surgical techniques with similar clinical and radiologic outcomes. MIS-TLIF is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay; however, it increases operation time significantly.