Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 6/2012

01-06-2012 | Original Article

Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis

Authors: Yoshihisa Kotani, Kuniyoshi Abumi, Manabu Ito, Hideki Sudo, Yuichiro Abe, Akio Minami

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

In order to minimize perioperative invasiveness and improve the patients’ functional capacity of daily living, we have performed minimally invasive lumbar decompression and posterolateral fusion (MIS-PLF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Although several minimally invasive fusion procedures have been reported, no study has yet demonstrated the efficacy of MIS-PLF in degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine. This study prospectively compared the mid-term clinical outcome of MIS-PLF with those of conventional PLF (open-PLF) focusing on perioperative invasiveness and patients’ functional capacity of daily living.

Materials and methods

A total of 80 patients received single-level PLF for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. There were 43 cases of MIS-PLF and 37 cases of open-PLF. The surgical technique of MIS-PLF included making a main incision (4 cm), and neural decompression followed by percutaneous pedicle screwing and rod insertion. The posterolateral gutter including the medial transverse process was decorticated and iliac bone graft was performed. The parameters analyzed up to a 2-year period included the operation time, intra and postoperative blood loss, Oswestry-Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and the visual analogue scale of low back pain. The fusion rate and complications were also reviewed.

Results

The average operation time was statistically equivalent between the two groups. The intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the MIS-PLF group (181 ml) when compared to the open-PLF group (453 ml). The postoperative bleeding on day 1 was also less in the MIS-PLF group (210 ml) when compared to the open-PLF group (406 ml). The ODI and RMQ scores rapidly decreased during the initial postoperative 2 weeks in the MIS-PLF group, and consistently maintained lower values than those in the open-PLF group at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The fusion rate was statistically equivalent between the two groups (98 vs. 100%), and no major complications occurred.

Conclusion

The MIS-PLF utilizing a percutaneous pedicle screw system is less invasive compared to conventional open-PLF. The reduction in postoperative pain led to an increase in activity of daily living (ADL), demonstrating rapid improvement of several functional parameters. This superiority in the MIS-PLF group was maintained until 2 years postoperatively, suggesting that less invasive PLF offers better mid-term results in terms of reducing low back pain and improving patients’ functional capacity of daily living. The MIS-PLF utilizing percutaneous pedicle screw fixation serves as an alternative technique, eliminating the need for conventional open approach.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20:E10PubMedCrossRef Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20:E10PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:560–565PubMedCrossRef Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:560–565PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao X et al (2009) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19:316–324PubMedCrossRef Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao X et al (2009) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19:316–324PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Foley KT, Gupta SK, Justis JR et al (2001) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus 10:1–8CrossRef Foley KT, Gupta SK, Justis JR et al (2001) Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus 10:1–8CrossRef
5.
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
6.
go back to reference 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 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
7.
go back to reference Jang JS, Lee SH (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:218–223PubMedCrossRef Jang JS, Lee SH (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:218–223PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK et al (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine 30:123–129PubMedCrossRef Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK et al (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine 30:123–129PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Park P, Foley KT (2008) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcome after a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 25:E16PubMedCrossRef Park P, Foley KT (2008) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcome after a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 25:E16PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32:537–543PubMedCrossRef Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32:537–543PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY et al (2009) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389PubMedCrossRef Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY et al (2009) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforamial lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60:203–212PubMedCrossRef Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforamial lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60:203–212PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E et al (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688PubMedCrossRef Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E et al (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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:S1–S6PubMedCrossRef 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:S1–S6PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Stauffer RN, Coventry MB (1972) Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 54A:1195–1204 Stauffer RN, Coventry MB (1972) Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 54A:1195–1204
16.
go back to reference Watkins MB (1953) Posterolateral fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg 35A:1014–1018 Watkins MB (1953) Posterolateral fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg 35A:1014–1018
17.
go back to reference Wiltse LL, Bteman JG (1965) Experience with transverse-process fusion of the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg 47A:848–849 Wiltse LL, Bteman JG (1965) Experience with transverse-process fusion of the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg 47A:848–849
Metadata
Title
Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis
Authors
Yoshihisa Kotani
Kuniyoshi Abumi
Manabu Ito
Hideki Sudo
Yuichiro Abe
Akio Minami
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2114-x

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

European Spine Journal 6/2012 Go to the issue