Vol 58, No 5 (2024)
Research Paper
Published online: 2024-08-05

open access

Page views 308
Article views/downloads 212
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in treatment of degenerative diseases of lumbosacral spine compared to modified open TLIF: a prospective randomised controlled study

Roman Kalina1
Pubmed: 39101649
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2024;58(5):503-511.

Abstract

Introduction. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) compared to modified open TLIF via the Wiltse approach for treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral region. The results were evaluated over a post-operative period of 48 months.

Material and method.
Radiological data and medical records of patients who underwent MIS TLIF and modified open TLIF between May 2017 and May 2021 were reviewed. Parameters monitored to evaluate the surgical results were: clinical status, operation time, blood loss, radiation dose to patient, day of discharge, analgesic consumption, fusion, and complications rate. For functional assessment, the Visual Analogue Scale for back pain (VAS-BP), VAS for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient Satisfaction Rate (PSR), and the complication rate were used.

Results. This study included 57 patients randomly divided into two groups: 30 operated on using the MIS TLIF technique, and 27 operated on using the modified open TLIF technique via the Wiltse approach. 48-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts. Patients did not differ significantly at baseline in terms of ODI, VAS-BP, or VAS-LP. Perioperatively, MIS TLIF was associated with significantly less blood loss (167.3 ± 80.0 vs. 297.9 ± 81.5 ml, p = 1.1E-05), slightly longer procedures (185.7 ± 45.2 vs. 183.1 ± 66.4 minutes, p = 0.76), a lower radiation dose (MIS 16.9 ± 7.1 vs. 22.0 ± 9.7 mGy OPEN p = 0.012), and shorter hospitalisations (MIS 5.9 ± 1.8 vs. 7.7 ± 1.6 days OPEN). The most common complication was radiculitis, which accounted for 33% and 37% in the MIS and the TLIF groups, respectively. The second most common complication was malposition of the fixation material, which accounted for 18.5% in the TLIF group and 20% in the MIS group. The level of fusion achieved was 92.6% in the MIS group versus 92.3% in the TLIF group. There was lower consumption of analgesics in MIS. Patient Satisfaction Rate (PSR) was 90%.

Conclusions.
Clinical and radiological outcomes after MIS TLIF in patients with degenerative disease of the lumbosacral region are generally favourable. MIS TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, a lower radiation dose and an earlier discharge, but there was no difference between MIS TLIF and modified open TLIF in 48-month outcomes in terms of disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or patient satisfaction rate or complication rate. Although the differences taper off over time, MIS TLIF has undeniable advantages in the perioperative and early postoperative periods.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Epstein NE. Foraminal and far lateral lumbar disc herniations: surgical alternatives and outcome measures. Spinal Cord. 2002; 40(10): 491–500.
  2. Kunogi J, Hasue M. Diagnosis and operative treatment of intraforaminal and extraforaminal nerve root compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(11): 1312–1320.
  3. Sheehan J, Shaffrey C, Jane J. Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2001; 384: 61–74.
  4. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 20(3): E6.
  5. Kim JS, Choi WG, Lee SH. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis: minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine J. 2010; 10(5): 404–409.
  6. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18 Suppl: S1–S6.
  7. Rudinský B, Koleják K. Degeneratívne ochorenie driekovej chrbtice-možnosti chirurgickej liečby. Neurol prax. 2008; 3: 135.
  8. Hari A, Krishna M, Rajagandhi S, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-indications and clinical experience. Neurol India. 2016; 64(3): 444–454.
  9. McCulloch JA, Young PH. Essentials of spinal microsurgery. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia 1998.
  10. Clark J, Bohl C, Tumialán L, et al. Evolution of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion : Improving Patient Safety and Outcomes. Barrow Quarterly. 2016; 26(1): 26–33.
  11. Yang Y, Liu ZY, Zhang LM, et al. Microendoscopy-Assisted Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: 5-Year Outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2018; 116: e602–e610.
  12. Harms J, Rolinger H. [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120(3): 343–347.
  13. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg. 2002; 49: 499–517.
  14. Magerl F. External Skeletal Fixation of the Lower Thoracic and the Lumbar Spine. Current Concepts of External Fixation of Fractures. 1982: 353–366.
  15. Qin R, Liu B, Zhou P, et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019; 122: 180–189.
  16. Nayar G, Blizzard DJ, Wang TY, et al. Pedicle screw placement accuracy using ultra-low radiation imaging with image enhancement versus conventional fluoroscopy in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an internally randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018; 28(2): 186–193.
  17. Chen K, Chen H, Zhang K, et al. O-arm Navigation Combined With Microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease. Clin Spine Surg. 2019; 32(5): E235–E240.
  18. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(13): 1385–1389.
  19. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(17): 1615–1620.
  20. Anand N, Kong C. Can Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Create Lordosis from a Posterior Approach? Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018; 29(3): 453–459.
  21. Ahn J, Tabaraee E, Singh K. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015; 28(6): 222–225.
  22. Weiss H, Garcia RM, Hopkins B, et al. A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 [Epub ahead of print]; 12(3): 328–339.
  23. Wang J, Zhou Y. Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center. The Spine Journal. 2014; 14(9): 2078–2084.
  24. Zhang D, Mao K, Qiang X. Comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: A STROBE-compliant observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(37): e8011.
  25. Choi WS, Kim JS, Hur JW, et al. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages: Radiological and Clinical Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Neurosurgery. 2018; 82(3): 289–298.
  26. Parajón A, Alimi M, Navarro-Ramirez R, et al. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of the Fusion Rates. What is the Optimal Graft Material? Neurosurgery. 2017; 81(6): 958–971.
  27. Wang L, Wang Y, Li Z, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2014; 14: 87.
  28. Than KD, Mummaneni PV. Unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS TLIF. World Neurosurg. 2014; 82(5): 646–647.
  29. Alvi M, Kurian S, Wahood W, et al. Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurgery. 2019; 127: 596–606.e1.
  30. White IK, Tuohy M, Archer J, et al. The Use of Bone Morphogenetic Protein in the Intervertebral Disk Space in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 10-year Experience in 688 Patients. Clin Spine Surg. 2019; 32(6): E272–E276.
  31. Krüger MT, Naseri Y, Hohenhaus M, et al. Impact of morbid obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m) on complication rate and outcome following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019; 178: 82–85.
  32. Zhao J, Zhang S, Li X, et al. Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24: 8693–8698.
  33. Haws BE, Khechen B, Patel DV, et al. Impact of local steroid application in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018; 30(2): 222–227.
  34. Enami A, Faloon M, Sahai N, et al. Risk factors for pseudoarthrosis in MIs TLIF. . Oct;():-838. Asian spine J 2018 Oct;12(5):830-838 doi:10 31616/asj 2018 12 5 830 Epub. 2018; 12(5): 830–838.
  35. Sharif S, Afsar A. Learning Curve and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. World Neurosurg. 2018; 119: 472–478.
  36. Chandra Vemula VR, Prasad BC, Jagadeesh MA, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using bone cement-augmented pedicle screws for lumbar spondylolisthesis in patients with osteoporosis. Case series and review of literature. Neurol India. 2018; 66(1): 118–125.
  37. Hawasli AH, Khalifeh JM, Chatrath A, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. Neurosurg Focus. 2017; 43(2): E10.
  38. Yang Y, Zhang L, Liu B, et al. Hidden and overall haemorrhage following minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Traumatol. 2017; 18(4): 395–400.
  39. Xie L, Wu WJ, Liang Yu. Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Chinese Medical Journal. 2016; 129(16): 1969–1986.
  40. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, et al. Disc herniation in the thoracolumbar junction treated by minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2014; 21(3): 431–435.
  41. Wu WJ, Liang Yu, Zhang XK, et al. Complications and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of one- or two-level degenerative disc diseases of the lumbar spine in patients older than 65 years. Chin Med J (Engl). 2012; 125(14): 2505–2510.
  42. Kai-Hong Chan A, Choy W, Miller CA, et al. A novel technique for awake, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technical note. Neurosurg Focus. 2019; 46(4): E16.
  43. Alshal E. Spinal Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation. Orthopedics and Rheumatology Open Access Journal. 2019; 14(5).
  44. Closkey RF, Parsons JR, Lee CK, et al. Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(8): 1011–1015.
  45. Li XC, Huang CM, Zhong CF, et al. Minimally invasive procedure reduces adjacent segment degeneration and disease: New benefit-based global meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(2): e0171546.
  46. Wang HL, LU FZ, Jiang JY, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial.Chin Med J (Engl). 2011 Dec. ; 124(23): 3868–3674.
  47. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007; 60(4 Suppl 2): 203–12; discussion 212.
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bridwell-interbody-fusion-grading-system_tbl1_47809535 (10.10.2023).