Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 6/2009

01-12-2009 | Original Paper

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience

Authors: Constantin Schizas, Nicolas Tzinieris, Elefterios Tsiridis, Victor Kosmopoulos

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 6/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare our experience with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) and open midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A total of 36 patients suffering from isthmic spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease were operated with either a MITLIF (n = 18) or an open TLIF technique (n = 18) with an average follow-up of 22 and 24 months, respectively. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). There was no difference in length of surgery between the two groups. The MITLIF group resulted in a significant reduction of blood loss and had a shorter length of hospital stay. No difference was observed in postoperative pain, initial analgesia consumption, VAS or ODI between the groups. Three pseudarthroses were observed in the MITLIF group although this was not statistically significant. A steeper learning effect was observed for the MITLIF group.
Literature
1.
Beringer WF, Mobasser JP (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20:E4PubMed
2.
Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20:E10CrossRefPubMed
3.
Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273PubMed
4.
Foley KT, Gupta SK (2002) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg 97:7–12PubMed
5.
Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–89
6.
Holly LT, Foley KT (2003) Three-dimensional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. Technical note. J Neurosurg 99:324–329PubMed
7.
Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26:567–571CrossRefPubMed
8.
Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L, Fessler RG (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98–105CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1994) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine 19:2598–2602PubMedCrossRef
11.
Kho VK, Chen WC (2008) Posterolateral fusion using laminectomy bone chips in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Intern Orthopaed 32(1):115–119CrossRef
12.
Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51:S166–S181PubMed
13.
Kim SS, Denis F, Lonstein JE, Winter RB (1990) Factors affecting fusion rate in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine 15(9):979–984CrossRefPubMed
14.
Mummaneni PV, Rodts GE Jr (2005) The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 57:256–261CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ozgur BM, Hughes SA, Baird LC, Taylor WR (2006) Minimally disruptive decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:27–33CrossRefPubMed
16.
Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR (2005) Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 14:887–894CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ramsay CR, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT, Grant AM (2002) Assessing the learning curve effect in health technologies. Lessons from the nonclinical literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18:1–10PubMed
18.
Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60:203–212CrossRefPubMed
19.
Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 Suppl:S1–S6
20.
Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG (1997) Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 22(2):210–219, discussion 219–20CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ventafridda V, Saita L, Ripamonti C, De CF (1985) WHO guidelines for the use of analgesics in cancer pain. Int J Tissue React 7:93–96PubMed
Metadata
Title
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience
Authors
Constantin Schizas
Nicolas Tzinieris
Elefterios Tsiridis
Victor Kosmopoulos
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 6/2009
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2009

International Orthopaedics 6/2009 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Clinical and radiological mid-term results of the thrust plate prosthesis

Original Paper

Is MIPO in humeral shaft fractures really safe? Postoperative ultrasonographic evaluation

Original Paper

Initial experience with custom-fit total knee replacement: intra-operative events and long-leg coronal alignment

Original Paper

Metal release and corrosion effects of modular neck total hip arthroplasty

Original Paper

Bifurcated popliteus tendon: a descriptive arthroscopic study

Original Paper

Leg lengthening by distraction osteogenesis using the Ilizarov apparatus: a novel concept of tibia callus subsidence and its influencing factors