Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Degenerative Disease | Research article

Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases

Authors: Ming Chen, Jianchao Cui, Youtao Liu, Zhuoyan Cai, Cekai Yang, Hao Liu, Yuan Chen, Zhensong Yao

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Objective

To compare modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disorders in order to assess its safety and effectiveness.

Methods

From January 2016 to January 2021, 74 patients who received single-segment M-TLIF were examined. A total of 74 patients having single-segment PLIF during the same time period were included in a retrospective controlled study using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The two groups were compared in terms of the fusion rate, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS), the perioperative condition, the postoperative complications, and the postoperative neighbouring segment degeneration.

Results

All patients had surgery satisfactorily and were monitored for at least a year afterwards. The baseline values for the two groups did not significantly differ. The interbody fusion rate between PLIF (98.65%) and M-TLIF (97.30%) was not significantly different. In the follow-up, the M-TLIF group's VAS score for low back and leg pain was lower than that of the PLIF group. The ODI score of the M-TLIF group was lower than that of the PLIF group at 7 days and 3 months following surgery. Both groups' post-op VAS and ODI scores for low back and leg pain were much lower than those from before the procedure. In M-TLIF group, the operation time, drainage tube extraction time, postoperative bed rest time and hospital stay time were shorter, and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less. Compared with those before operation, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were significantly increased in both groups during postoperative follow-up (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications and adjacent segment degeneration of M-TLIF were significantly lower than those of PLIF.

Conclusions

M-TLIF is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar degenerative disorders, with a high fusion rate and no significant difference between M-TLIF and PLIF. M-TLIF's efficacy and safety are comparable to that of PLIF, particularly in terms of early relief of low back pain and improvement in quality of life following surgery. Therefore, M-TLIF technology can be popularized and applied in clinic.

Hennemann S, de Abreu MR. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2021;56(1):9–17.PubMed

Badlani N, Yu E, Kreitz T, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33(2):62–4.CrossRefPubMed

Li X, Liu J, Liu Z. Comparison of the results of open PLIF versus UBE PLIF in lumbar spinal stenosis: postoperative adjacent segment instability is lesser in UBE. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18:543.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, et al. Cranial facet joint violations by percutaneously placed pedicle screws adjacent to a minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2011;11(4):295–302.CrossRefPubMed

Okuda S, Nagamoto Y, Takenaka S, et al. Effect of segmental lordosis on early-onset adjacent-segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(4):454–9.CrossRefPubMed

Briggs HMP. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. JBJS. 1944;26:125–30.

Kunder SL, Rijkers K, Caelers I, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: a historical overview and a future perspective. Spine. 2018;43(16):1161–8.CrossRefPubMed

Guigui P, Ferrero E. Surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(1S):S11-20.CrossRefPubMed

Wang MC, Yu KY, Zhang JG, et al. Progression and clinical application in unilateral biportal endoscopic. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020;58(11):892–6.PubMed

10.

Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, Duranceau J, Oxland T, Crisco JJ. Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spinal stability after graded facetectomies. Spine. 1990;15:1142–7.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Matsukawa K, Yato Y. Lumbar pedicle screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory: a review from anatomical and biomechanical standpoints. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017;1:164–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Morgenstern C, Yue JJ, Morgenstern R. Full percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the facet-sparing, trans-kambin approach. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:40–5.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Huo Y, Yang D, Ma L, Wang H, Ding W, Yang S. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone cages for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study with 1-year follow-up. Pain Res Manag. 2020;11(2020):9016219.

14.

Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Mcenery KW, et al. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects. Spine. 1995;20(12):1410.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N, Mc Culloch PC, Robbins AB, Moreno MR, Harris JD. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018;2(3): e088.PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25:2940–53.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kaye AD, Edinoff AN, Temple SN, et al. A comprehensive review of novel interventional techniques for chronic pain:spinal stenosis and degenerative disc disease-MILD percutaneous image guided lumbar decompression, vertiflex interspinous spacer, minuteman G3 interspinous-interlaminar fusion. Adv Ther. 2021;38(9):4628–45.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wasinpongwanich K, Pongpirul K, Lwin KMM, et al. Full-endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy: retrospective review of clinical results and complications in 545 international patients. World Neurosurg. 2019;132:e922–8.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lee SH, Erken HY, Bae J. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological results of mean 46-month follow-up. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:3731983.PubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Bumann H, Nüesch C, Loske S, et al. Severity of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis affects pelvic rigidity during walking. Spine J. 2020;20(1):112–20.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management: a prospective 10-year study. Spine. 2000;25(11):1424–35.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, et al. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mohan M, Sawarkar P. Ayurvedic management of Gridhrasi with special respect to sciatica: a case report. J Indian Syst Med. 2019;7(2):131–8.CrossRef

24.

Fan G, Wu X, Yu S, et al. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9540298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Nagamoto Y, Okuda S, Matsumoto T. Multiple-repeated adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:808–16.CrossRef

26.

Kader AE. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(1):52–8.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Chen M, Yang C, Cai Z, Liu Y, Liu H, Cui J, Yao Z, Chen Y. Lumbar posterior group muscle degeneration: Influencing factors of adjacent vertebral body re-fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;17(9):1078403.CrossRef

28.

Martinelli TC, Effgen EA, Brazolino MAN, et al. Evaluation of the discal height gain and lumbar lordosis variation obtained by the techniques of transforaminal and posterior lumbar intersomatic fusion. Rev Bras Ortop. 2018;53(5):527–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Ishihara Y, Morishita M, Miyaki J, et al. Comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the boomerang-shaped cage with traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2018;3(1):71–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Cheng X, Zhang K, Sun X, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Spine J. 2017;17(8):1127–33.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Matsumoto T, Okuda S, Maeno T, Yamashita T, Yamasaki R, Sugiura T, Iwasaki M. Spinopelvic sagittal imbalance as a risk factor for adjacent-segment disease after single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(4):435–40.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Zencica P, Chaloupka R, Hladíková J, Krbec M. Degenerace prilehlého pohybového segmentu po lumbosakrální fúzi u spondylolistéz: retrospektivní radiologická a klinická analýza [Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbosacral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a retrospective radiological and clinical analysis]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2010;77(2):124–30.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Du CZ, Li S, Xu L, Zhou QS, Zhu ZZ, Sun X, Qiu Y. Sagittal reconstruction of lumbosacral contiguous double-level spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: a comparison of double-level and single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Takeda K, Okada E, Shinozaki Y, Ozaki M, Kono H, Yasuda A, Suzuki S, Tsuji O, Nagoshi N, Yagi M, Fujita N, Ogawa J, Nakamura M, Matsumoto M, Watanabe K. Risk factors for early-onset radiographical adjacent segment disease in patients with spondylolytic spondylolisthesis after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2022;22(7):1112–8.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases
Authors: Ming Chen
Jianchao Cui
Youtao Liu
Zhuoyan Cai
Cekai Yang
Hao Liu
Yuan Chen
Zhensong Yao
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Degenerative Disease
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04531-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Clinical benefits of adding dexamethasone to local infiltration analgesia for simultaneous bilateral total hip or knee arthroplasty

Biomechanical response of decompression alone in lower grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis--A finite element analysis

Incidence and risk factors of perioperative deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach

Mechanism of Circ_HECW2 regulating osteoblast apoptosis in osteoporosis by attenuating the maturation of miR-1224-5p

MicroRNA-877-5p promotes osteoblast differentiation by targeting EIF4G2 expression

Preoperative prediction model for risk of readmission after total joint replacement surgery: a random forest approach leveraging NLP and unfairness mitigation for improved patient care and cost-effectiveness