Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 7/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Article • SPINE - LUMBAR

Clinical outcomes of two minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases

Authors: Yonghao Tian, Xinyu Liu

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There are two modified TLIF, including MIS-TLIF and TLIF through Wiltse approach (W-TLIF). Although both of the two minimally invasive surgical procedures can be effective in the treatment for lumbar degenerative diseases, no comparative analysis has been made so far regarding their clinical outcomes.

Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes of MIS-TLIF and W-TLIF for the treatment for single-segment degenerative lumbar diseases.

Methods

Ninety-seven patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar disorders were included in this study. Forty-seven underwent MIS-TLIF surgery (group A). For group B, fifty patients underwent W-TLIF. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain (LBP) and leg pain, MRI score and atrophy rate of CSA, interbody fusion rate were assessed during the postoperative follow-up.

Results

Incision length, blood loss, operative time, CPK, and postoperative incision pain VAS were better in group A (P < 0.05). The seconds of intraoperative fluoroscopy in groups A and B were 76 ± 9 and 7 ± 2, respectively (P < 0.05). In group B, The blood loss and CPK at L5-S1 were significantly higher than those at L4-5. Postoperative JOA scores, VAS of leg pain, and fusion rate were statistically the same between the two groups. VAS of LBP, MRI score, and atrophy rate of CSA was better in group A than in group B (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both methods are effective in the treatment for lumbar degenerative disease. MIS-TLIF has less blood loss, shorter surgical incision, and less lower postoperative back pain, while W-TLIF is less expensive for hospital stay with lower exposure to X-rays.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bogduk N (1981) The lumbar mamillo-accessory ligament its anatomical and its neurosurgical significance. Spine 6:162–167CrossRefPubMed Bogduk N (1981) The lumbar mamillo-accessory ligament its anatomical and its neurosurgical significance. Spine 6:162–167CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Panjabi M (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord 5:383–389CrossRefPubMed Panjabi M (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. Part I. Function, dysfunction, adaptation, and enhancement. J Spinal Disord 5:383–389CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Kim K, Isu T, Sugawara A et al (2008) Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage. Surg Neurol 69:109–113CrossRefPubMed Kim K, Isu T, Sugawara A et al (2008) Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage. Surg Neurol 69:109–113CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kotil K, Tunckale T, Tatar Z et al (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase activity and histological changes in the multifidus muscle: a prospective randomized controlled comparative study of discectomy with or without retraction. J Neurosurg Spine 6:121–125CrossRefPubMed Kotil K, Tunckale T, Tatar Z et al (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase activity and histological changes in the multifidus muscle: a prospective randomized controlled comparative study of discectomy with or without retraction. J Neurosurg Spine 6:121–125CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Sapega AA, Heppenstall RB, Change B et al (1985) Optimizing tourniquet application and release times in extremity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:303–314PubMed Sapega AA, Heppenstall RB, Change B et al (1985) Optimizing tourniquet application and release times in extremity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:303–314PubMed
7.
go back to reference Watkins MB (1959) Posterolateral bone grafting for fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 41:388–396PubMed Watkins MB (1959) Posterolateral bone grafting for fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 41:388–396PubMed
8.
go back to reference Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH et al (1968) The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:919–926PubMed Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH et al (1968) The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 50:919–926PubMed
9.
go back to reference Wiltse LL, Spencer CW (1988) New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 13:696–706CrossRefPubMed Wiltse LL, Spencer CW (1988) New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 13:696–706CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347CrossRefPubMed Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMed Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMed
12.
go back to reference Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26–S35PubMed Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26–S35PubMed
13.
go back to reference Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W et al (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W et al (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR (2014) Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1727–1737CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR (2014) Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1727–1737CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Zheng Y, Liu X, Yuan S (2011) The clinical results of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion through the Wiltse approach for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Chin J Orthop 31:921–926 Zheng Y, Liu X, Yuan S (2011) The clinical results of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion through the Wiltse approach for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Chin J Orthop 31:921–926
16.
go back to reference Liu X, Wang Y, Wu X, Zheng Y, Long Jia, Li J, Li J, Wei B (2010) Impact of surgical approaches on the lumbar multifidus muscle: an experimental study using sheep as models. J Neurosurg Spine 12(5):570–576CrossRefPubMed Liu X, Wang Y, Wu X, Zheng Y, Long Jia, Li J, Li J, Wei B (2010) Impact of surgical approaches on the lumbar multifidus muscle: an experimental study using sheep as models. J Neurosurg Spine 12(5):570–576CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Fujiwara A, Kobayashi N, Saiki K et al (2003) Association of the Japanese orthopaedic association score with the oswestry disability index, Roland–Morris disability questionnaire, and short-form 36. Spine 28:1601–1607PubMed Fujiwara A, Kobayashi N, Saiki K et al (2003) Association of the Japanese orthopaedic association score with the oswestry disability index, Roland–Morris disability questionnaire, and short-form 36. Spine 28:1601–1607PubMed
18.
go back to reference Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML et al (2001) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 25:1437–1446CrossRef Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML et al (2001) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 25:1437–1446CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y et al (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694–699CrossRefPubMed Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y et al (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694–699CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Clinical outcomes of two minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases
Authors
Yonghao Tian
Xinyu Liu
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1755-1

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 7/2016 Go to the issue