Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-12-2013 | Original Article

Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up

Authors: Javier Rodríguez-Vela, Antonio Lobo-Escolar, Eduardo Joven, Javier Muñoz-Marín, Antonio Herrera, José Velilla

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 12/2013

Abstract

Purpose

Supporters of minimally invasive approaches for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have reported short-term advantages associated with a reduced soft tissue trauma. Nevertheless, mid- and long-term outcomes and specifically those involving physical activities have not been adequately studied. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of mini-open versus classic open surgery for one-level TLIF, with an individualized evaluation of the variables used for the clinical assessment.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted of 41 individuals with degenerative disc disease who underwent a one-level TLIF from January 2007 to June 2008. Patients were randomized into two groups depending on the type of surgery performed: classic open (CL-TLIF) group and mini-open approach (MO-TLIF) group. The visual analog scale (VAS), North American Spine Society (NASS) Low Back Pain Outcome instrument, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) were used for clinical assessment in a minimum 3-year follow-up (36–54 months).

Results

Patients of the MO-TLIF group presented lower rates of lumbar (p = 0.194) and sciatic pain (p = 0.427) and performed better in daily life activities, especially in those requiring mild efforts: lifting slight weights (p = 0.081), standing (p = 0.097), carrying groceries (p = 0.033), walking (p = 0.069) and dressing (p = 0.074). Nevertheless, the global scores of the clinical questionnaires showed no statistical differences between the CL-TLIF and the MO-TLIF groups.

Conclusions

Despite an improved functional status of MO-TLIF patients in the short term, the clinical outcomes of mini-open TLIF at the 3- to 4-year follow-up showed no clinically relevant differences to those obtained with open TLIF.

Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102. doi:10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7 PubMedCrossRef

Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1051624 PubMedCrossRef

Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M (2011) Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:288–296. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f9a60a PubMedCrossRef

Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garcés Ambrossi GL, Parker SL, Sciubba DM, Bydon A, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF (2011) Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity. Neurol Res 33:38–42. doi:10.1179/016164110X12681290831289 PubMedCrossRef

Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H (2009) Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine 34:1923–1928. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e PubMedCrossRef

Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694–699. doi:10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09621 PubMedCrossRef

Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:479–484. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac PubMed

Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26–S35. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E PubMed

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:S1–S6PubMedCrossRef

10.

Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20:E6PubMedCrossRef

11.

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 32:537–543. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000256473.49791.f4 PubMedCrossRef

12.

Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xianggian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19:1780–1784. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z PubMedCrossRef

14.

Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 1:12. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.63905 PubMedCrossRef

15.

Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, Herrera A, Vicente J, Suñen E, Loste A, Tabuenca A (2009) Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18:1194–1201. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Logroscino CA, Proietti L, Pola E, Scaramuzzo L, Tamburrelli FC (2011) A minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine instabilities. Eur Spine J 20:S41–S45. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1762-1 PubMedCrossRef

17.

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 9:560–565. doi:10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142 PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kim CW (2010) Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 35:S281–S286. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022d32 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Sarasqueta C, Gabaldon O, Iza I, Béland F, Paz PM (2005) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the NASS outcomes instrument in Spanish patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 14:586–594. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0871-5 PubMedCrossRef

20.

Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749PubMedCrossRef

21.

Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952PubMedCrossRef

22.

Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164PubMedCrossRef

23.

Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM (1995) The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc) 104:771–776

24.

Haro H, Maekawa S, Hamada Y (2008) Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. Spine J 8:380–384. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.010 PubMedCrossRef

25.

Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR (2005) Minimally invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 14:887–894. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0941-3 PubMedCrossRef

Title: Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up
Authors: Javier Rodríguez-Vela
Antonio Lobo-Escolar
Eduardo Joven
Javier Muñoz-Marín
Antonio Herrera
José Velilla
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 12/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2853-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2013

Evaluation of a new type of titanium mesh cage versus the traditional titanium mesh cage for single-level, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion

The combination of mesenchymal stem cells and a bone scaffold in the treatment of vertebral body defects

Disposable instrumentation for lumbar pedicle screw and rod constructs

Alterations in axial curvature of the cervical spine with a combination of rotation and extension in the conventional anterior cervical approach

Investigation of coupled bending of the lumbar spine during dynamic axial rotation of the body

A novel technique for sublaminar-band-assisted closure of pedicle subtraction osteotomy