Top

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Spondylolisthesis | Research article

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis

Authors: Yang-Yi Wang, Yu-Hsuan Chung, Chun-Hsien Huang, Ming-Hsien Hu

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

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis.

Methods

This study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed.

Results

There was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease.

Conclusion

In this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.

Lenz M, Mohamud K, Bredow J, Oikonomidis S, Eysel P, Scheyerer MJ. Comparison of different approaches in lumbosacral spinal Fusion surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Asian Spine J. 2022;16(1):141–9.CrossRefPubMed

Tang L, Wu Y, Jing D, Xu Y, Wang C, Pan J. A bayesian network meta-analysis of 5 different fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Med (Baltim). 2020;99(14):e19639.CrossRef

Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg. 2002;49:499–517.PubMed

Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Pracyk J. Minimally invasive Versus Open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion for single-level degenerative disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:358–65. e4.CrossRefPubMed

Qin R, Liu B, Zhou P, Yao Y, Hao J, Yang K, 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;122:180–9.CrossRefPubMed

El- Desouky A, Silva PS, Ferreira A, Wibawa GA, Vaz R, Pereira P. How accurate is fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement in minimally invasive TLIF? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021;205:106623.CrossRefPubMed

Zhang RJ, Zhou LP, Zhang L, Zhang HQ, Ge P, Jia CY et al. The Rates and Risk factors of Intra-pedicular Accuracy and Proximal Facet Joint violation for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: cortical bone trajectory versus traditional trajectory pedicle screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021.

Regev GJ, Lee YP, Taylor WR, Garfin SR, Kim CW. Nerve injury to the posterior rami medial branch during the insertion of pedicle screws: comparison of mini-open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(11):1239–42.CrossRefPubMed

Boelderl A, Daniaux H, Kathrein A, Maurer H. Danger of damaging the medial branches of the posterior rami of spinal nerves during a dorsomedian approach to the spine. Clin Anat. 2002;15(2):77–81.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lee CK, Kim D, An SB, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN et al. An optimal cortical bone trajectory technique to prevent early surgical complications. Br J Neurosurg. 2020:1–7.

11.

Song T, Hsu WK, Ye T. Lumbar pedicle cortical bone trajectory screw. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(21):3808–13.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Formby PM, Kang DG, Helgeson MD, Wagner SC. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in patients with osteoporosis. Global Spine J. 2016;6(7):660–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

13.

Weiser L, Huber G, Sellenschloh K, Viezens L, Puschel K, Morlock MM, et al. Insufficient stability of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical correlation of bone mineral density and pedicle screw fixation strength. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(11):2891–7.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, Whitecloud TS 3rd, Cook SD. Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(21):2415–20.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J. 2009;9(5):366–73.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(4):E240–5.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hu JN, Yang XF, Li CM, Li XX, Ding YZ. Comparison of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques in lumbar fusion surgery: a meta-analysis. Med (Baltim). 2019;98(33):e16751.CrossRef

18.

Meyerding HW, Spondyloptosis. Surg Gynaecol Obstet. 1932;54:371–7.

19.

Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG, Fischer CR, Petrizzo A, Protopsaltis TS, et al. Comparative analysis of two transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion techniques: open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(9):E555–60.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Berjano P, Damilano M, Ismael M, Formica C, Garbossa D. Minimally invasive PLIF with divergent, cortical trajectory pedicle screws. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 5):654–5.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Matsukawa K, Taguchi E, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, et al. Evaluation of the fixation strength of pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: what is the Ideal trajectory for optimal fixation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(15):E873–8.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(12):1410–8.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780–4.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

24.

Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–53.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wu X, Shi J, Wu J, Cheng Y, Peng K, Chen J, et al. Pedicle screw loosening: the value of radiological imagings and the identification of risk factors assessed by extraction torque during screw removal surgery. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

26.

Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH. Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):990–1004.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ellwood S, Shupper P, Kaufman A. A retrospective review of spinal Radiofrequency Neurotomy procedures in patients with metallic posterior spinal instrumentation - is it safe? Pain Physician. 2018;21(5):E477–82.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Klessinger S, editor. Safety and Efficacy of Lumbar Spine Radiofrequency Neurotomy in the Presence of Posterior Pedicle Screws2016.

29.

Lau P, Mercer S, Govind J, Bogduk N. The surgical anatomy of lumbar medial branch neurotomy (facet denervation). Pain Med. 2004;5(3):289–98.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Zhou L. The anatomy of dorsal Ramus nerves and its implications in Lower Back Pain. Neurosci Med. 2012;03:192–201.CrossRef

31.

Kasukawa Y, Miyakoshi N, Hongo M, Ishikawa Y, Kudo D, Shimada Y. Short-term results of transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion using pedicle screw with cortical bone trajectory compared with conventional trajectory. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(3):440–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

32.

Gonchar I, Kotani Y, Matsui Y, Miyazaki T, Iwasaki N, editors. Clinical Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion2017.

33.

Wu FL, Dang L, Zhou H, Yu M, Wei F, Jiang L, et al. Two-year outcomes of midline lumbar Fusion Versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion in the treatment of L4-L5 degenerative disease. Biomed Environ Sci. 2020;33(11):839–48.PubMed

34.

Elmekaty M, Kotani Y, Mehy EE, Robinson Y, Tantawy AE, Sekiguchi I, et al. Clinical and radiological comparison between three different minimally invasive Surgical Fusion techniques for single-level lumbar isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimally invasive Surgical Posterolateral Fusion versus minimally invasive Surgical Transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion versus midline lumbar Fusion. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(5):870–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

35.

Silva PS, Jardim A, Pereira J, Sousa R, Vaz R, Pereira P. Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(9):3210–7.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis
Authors: Yang-Yi Wang
Yu-Hsuan Chung
Chun-Hsien Huang
Ming-Hsien Hu
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Spondylolisthesis
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04764-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Application of machine learning-based multi-sequence MRI radiomics in diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament tears

Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical spinal stenosis: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study

Is fracture management merely a physical process? Exploring the psychological effects of internal and external fixation

Bupivacaine–fentanyl isobaric spinal anesthesia reduces the risk of ICU admission in elderly patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery

circ_0029463 promotes osteoclast differentiation by mediating miR-134-5p/Rab27a axis

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