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
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 4/2011

01-04-2011 | Original Article

Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine

Authors: Jian Wang, Yue Zhou, Zheng Feng Zhang, Chang Qing Li, Wen Jie Zheng, Jie Liu

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques have been developed in recent 20 years. The goals of these procedures are to reduce approach-related soft tissue injury, postoperative pain, and disability while allowing the surgery to be conducted in an effective manner. There have been no prospective clinical reports published on the comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression or a traditional open approach. A prospective clinical study was performed by evaluating the clinical and radiographic results of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative new technique in the revision surgery for patients previously treated by open procedure. 52 patients (28 M, 24 F) with an average age of 55.7 (31–76) were prospectively evaluated. All patients who had previous discectomy (n = 13), hemilaminectomy (n = 16), laminectomy (n = 12) and facetectomy (n = 11) underwent monosegmental and bisegmental minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) (n = 25) or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) (n = 27) by two experienced surgeons at one hospital, from March 2006 to October 2008 (minimum 12-month follow-up). The following data were compared between the two groups: the clinical and radiographic results, operative time, blood loss, X-ray exposure time, postoperative back pain, and complications. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The operative time and clinical and radiographic results were basically identical in both groups. Comparing with the OTLIF group, the MiTLIF group had significantly less blood loss and less postoperative back pain at the second day postoperatively. The radiation time was significantly longer in the MiTLIF group. Complications included three cases of small dural tear in the MiTLIF group. There were five cases of dural tear and two cases of superficial wound infection in the OTLIF group. One case of nonunion was observed from each group. Minimally invasive TLIF is a safe and effective procedure for treatment of selected revision patients previously treated by open surgery with some potential advantages. However, this technique needs longer X-ray exposure time.
Literature
1.
Cloward RB (1982) History of PLIF: forty years of personal experience. In: Lin PM (ed) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, pp 58–71
2.
Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: Part I—indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168PubMedCrossRef
3.
Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ (1988) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop 227:99–102PubMed
4.
Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–89
5.
Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG et al (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26:567–571PubMedCrossRef
6.
Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 21:941–944PubMedCrossRef
7.
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
8.
Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljiarvi L et al (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581PubMedCrossRef
9.
Styf JR, Willen J (1998) The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine 23:354–358PubMedCrossRef
10.
Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P et al (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98–105PubMedCrossRef
11.
Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP et al (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–S6PubMedCrossRef
12.
Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60:203–212PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G et al (2005) Minimally invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 14:887–894PubMedCrossRef
14.
Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E et al (2008) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688PubMedCrossRef
15.
Peng CWB, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo WM et al (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389PubMedCrossRef
16.
Kambin P (1993) Arthroscopic microdiscectomy of the lumbar spine. Clin Sports Med 12:143–150PubMed
17.
Lee SH, Choi WG, Lim SR et al (2004) Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J 4:644–649PubMedCrossRef
18.
Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ et al (1989) Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine 14:33–36PubMedCrossRef
19.
Arts MP, Nieborg A, Brand R et al (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase as an indicator of muscle injury after various spinal and nonspinal surgical procedures. J Neurosurg 7:282–286
20.
Selznik LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE (2009) Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:207–213CrossRef
21.
Ringel F, Stoffel M, Stuer C et al (2006) Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 59(4 Suppl 2):ONS361–ONS366PubMed
Metadata
Title
Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine
Authors
Jian Wang
Yue Zhou
Zheng Feng Zhang
Chang Qing Li
Wen Jie Zheng
Jie Liu
Publication date
01-04-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1578-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

European Spine Journal 4/2011 Go to the issue

Chinese section

Modified total en bloc spondylectomy in thoracic vertebra tumour

Original Article

Single-nucleotide polymorphism in the hyaluronan and proteoglycan link protein 1 (HAPLN1) gene is associated with spinal osteophyte formation and disc degeneration in Japanese women

Original Article

Do early stages of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration really cause instability? Evaluation of an in vitro database

Original Article

Anatomy of the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus with respect to the surgical approach for lateral transpsoas interbody fusion

Original Article

Perioperative complications with rhBMP-2 in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Original Article

Should smoking habit dictate the fusion technique?