Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Minimally Invasive Surgery | Research

A novel surgical technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the bone graft delivery device: evaluation of therapeutic effect in patients with minimally invasive spine surgery

Authors: Kai-shun Yang, Chih-Wei Chen, Ru-Bin Yau, Huang-Chien Liang, Ching-Chung Ko, Jinn-Rung Kuo, Chung-Ching Chio, Sher-Wei Lim

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) is commonly associated with higher complications and longer operative time. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and usability of a novel minimally invasive surgery (MIS) bone graft delivery device.

Methods

73 consecutive patients with lumbar spondylosis, degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis or trauma were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Group 1 comprised 39 patients treated with the novel MIS bone graft delivery device. Group 2 consisted of 34 patients treated with the conventional system. The primary objective of the study was the assessment of the amount of bone graft delivery using the device. The secondary objectives were the effect of the device on operative time, pain relief, disability improvement, and bone fusion grade.

Results

Bone delivery amount was significantly higher in the MIS device group (6.7 ± 2.9 mL) compared to the conventional group (2.3 ± 0.5 mL), p < 0.001. Regarding the operation time, the MIS device group was associated significantly lower duration than the conventional group (p < 0.001). After a 3-month follow-up, 39.5% of the patients in the MIS device group and 3.5% of the patients in the conventional group were observed to achieve grade I fusion (complete fusion). There was a significant difference in fusion success rates (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The novel MIS bone graft delivery device was associated with successful bone delivery. Our MIS device provides promising modality with less operative time and higher bone fusion rates than conventional modalities.

Trial Registration This trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration date: 11/19/2021; Registration number: NCT05190055).

Available only for authorised users

Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015;1:2–18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05.PubMedPubMedCentral

Albert TJ, Pinto M, Denis F. Management of symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis with anteroposterior fusion. A functional and radiographic outcome study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:123–9.CrossRef

Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery. 2004;54:368–74. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000103493.25162.18.CrossRefPubMed

Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:567–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023.CrossRef

Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, Liu JC. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:379–86. https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/10/379.CrossRefPubMed

Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15:31–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.181536.CrossRefPubMed

DiGiovanni CW, Lin SS, Daniels TR, Glazebrook M, Evangelista P, Donahue R, Beasley W, Baumhauer JF. The importance of sufficient graft material in achieving foot or ankle fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1260–7. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00879.CrossRefPubMed

Yoo JS, Min SH, Yoon SH. Fusion rate according to mixture ratio and volumes of bone graft in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(Suppl 1):S183-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1529-6.CrossRefPubMed

Chang KY, Hsu WK. Spinal biologics in minimally invasive lumbar surgery. Minim Invasive Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5230350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Kleiner JB, Kleiner HM, Grimberg EJ Jr, Throlson SJ. Evaluation of a novel tool for bone graft delivery in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;9:105–14. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S100098.

11.

Shau DN, Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ. Transforaminal lumbar interbody graft placement using an articulating delivery arm facilitates increased segmental lordosis with superior anterior and midline graft placement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:140–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318275658e.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Clinicaltrials.gov, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Evaluation of Treatment Effect of Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Surgery. 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT05190055.

13.

Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Hachiya Y, Miura Y, Kamiya M, Yukawa Y, Sakai Y, Katayama Y, Wakao N, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N. Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(5):1158–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2593-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P, Arirachakaran A, Kongtharvonskul J. Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41:755–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-016-0806-8.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tan JH, Liu G, Ng R, Kumar N, Wong HK, Liu G. Is MIS-TLIF superior to open TLIF in obese patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:1877–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5630-0.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schoenfeld AJ, Thomas D, Bader JO, Bono CM. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: prognostic factors related to retention in an active duty military population. Mil Med. 2013;178:228–33. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed-d-12-00313.CrossRefPubMed

17.

von der Hoeh NH, Voelker A, Heyde CE. Results of lumbar spondylodeses using different bone grafting materials after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J. 2017;26:2835–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5145-0.CrossRef

18.

Kim SS, Denis F, Lonstein JE, Winter RB. Factors affecting fusion rate in adult spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa). 1990;15:979–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199009000-00026.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Formica M, Vallerga D, Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Divano S, Mosconi L, Quarto E, Siri G, Felli L. Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00634-x.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Snider RK, Krumwiede NK, Snider LJ, Jurist JM, Lew RA, Katz JN. Factors affecting lumbar spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12:107–14.CrossRef

21.

Galimberti F, Lubelski D, Healy AT, Wang T, Abdullah KG, Nowacki AS, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. A systematic review of lumbar fusion rates with and without the use of rhBMP-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1132–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000971.CrossRef

22.

Boden SD, Sumner DR. Biologic factors affecting spinal fusion and bone regeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:102S-112S.CrossRef

23.

Hawasli AH, Khalifeh JM, Chatrath A, Yarbrough CK, Ray WZ. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43:E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17197.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cannestra AF, Peterson MD, Parker SR, Roush TF, Bundy JV, Turner AW. MIS expandable interbody spacers: a literature review and biomechanical comparison of an expandable MIS TLIF with conventional TLIF and ALIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 8):S44-49. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001465.

25.

Ren C, Qin R, Sun P, Wang P. Effectiveness and safety of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137:441–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2641-y.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kalfas IH. Principles of bone healing. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;10:E1.CrossRef

27.

Sukovich W. Progress, challenges and opportunities in disc space preparation for lumbar interbody fusion. Internet J Spine Surg. 2004;1:1–6.

28.

Ozgur BM, Gillard DM, Wood EE, Truong FD, Wendel TG. Can the use of a novel bone graft delivery system significantly increase the volume of bone graft material in a lumbar in situ cage, beyond volumes normally achieved via standard cage filling methodology? Results from a cadaveric pilot study. Interdiscip Neurosurg Adv Tech Case Manag. 2018;14:32–6.

29.

Qin R, Liu B, Zhou P, Yao Y, Hao J, Yang K, Xu TL, Zhang F, Chen X. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.202.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Yao YC, Lin HH, Chou PH, Wang ST, Chang MC. Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis. Eur Spine J. 2019;28:2095–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06002-4.CrossRefPubMed

Title: A novel surgical technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the bone graft delivery device: evaluation of therapeutic effect in patients with minimally invasive spine surgery
Authors: Kai-shun Yang
Chih-Wei Chen
Ru-Bin Yau
Huang-Chien Liang
Ching-Chung Ko
Jinn-Rung Kuo
Chung-Ching Chio
Sher-Wei Lim
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Minimally Invasive Surgery
Published in: BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01773-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A novel surgical technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the bone graft delivery device: evaluation of therapeutic effect in patients with minimally invasive spine surgery

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 1/2022

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous sclerotherapy versus surgical resection in the treatment of large hepatic hemangiomas: a retrospective study

Magnitude and determinants of treatment outcome among surgically treated patients with intestinal obstruction at Public Hospitals of Wolayita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: a cross sectional study, 2021

The incidence and features of Delphian lymph node involvement in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma

Surgical treatment of recurrent intussusception induced by intestinal lymphoid hyperplasia in a child: is bowel resection always necessary? A case report

A novel method of lateral closing wedge osteotomy for cubitus varus deformity in children

Patients with ectopic ACTH syndrome might have a better prognosis in bronchopulmonary carcinoids with lymph node metastasis received radical surgery: a single-centre retrospective study in the last 22 years in China