Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-11-2012 | Original Article

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease

Authors: Antonio Tsahtsarlis, Martin Wood

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 11/2012

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Methods

A prospective analysis of 34 consecutive patients who underwent a MI-TLIF using image guidance between July 2008 and November 2010. The patient group comprised 19 males and 15 females (mean age 56), 23 of whom had undergone additional reduction of spondylolisthesis. All patients underwent post-operative CT imaging to assess pedicle screw, cage placement and fusion at 6 months. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded pre-operatively and at 6-month follow up.

Results

33/34 (97.1 %) patients showed evidence of fusion at 6 months with a mean improvement of 27 on ODI scores. The mean length of hospital stay was 4 days. The mean operative time was 173 min.

Complications observed

1/34 (2.9 %) suffered a pulmonary embolism and 1/34 (2.9 %) patients developed transient nerve root pain post-operatively. There were no occurrences of infection and no post-operative CSF leaks.

Conclusion

MI-TLIF offers patients a safe and effective surgical treatment option to treat degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I: indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168PubMedCrossRef

Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion [in german]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347PubMedCrossRef

Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18(3):430–434PubMedCrossRef

Grob D (2009) Surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 18(12):1991–1992PubMedCrossRef

Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y et al (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 120:1023–1028CrossRef

Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B et al (1993) The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 18:568–574PubMedCrossRef

Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljiarvi L et al (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in post operative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581PubMedCrossRef

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

Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMed

10.

Molinari RW, Bridwell SJ, Klepps SJ et al (1999) Minimum 5 year follow up of anterior column structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Spine 24:967–972PubMedCrossRef

11.

Mannion R, Nowitzke A, Wood M (2010) Promoting fusion in minimally invasive lumbar interbody stabilisation with low dose BMP-2—but what is the cost? Spine J [E-pub prior to print]

12.

Park P, Foley KT (2008) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 25:E16PubMedCrossRef

13.

Mura PP, Costaglioli M, Piredda M, Caboni S, Casula S (2011) TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S57–S60PubMedCrossRef

14.

Faundez AA, Schwender JD, Safriel Y, Gilbert TJ, Mehbod AA, Denis F, Transfeldt EE, Wroblewski JM (2009) Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior-posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients. Eur Spine J 18(2):203–211PubMedCrossRef

15.

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 1):S1–S6PubMedCrossRef

16.

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

17.

Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY et al (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389PubMedCrossRef

18.

Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM et al (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12PubMedCrossRef

19.

Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z et al (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620PubMedCrossRef

20.

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2011) Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20(4):623–628PubMedCrossRef

21.

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zheng Z et al (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 19:1780–1784PubMedCrossRef

22.

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. Neurosurg Spine 9:560–565CrossRef

23.

Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P et al (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98–105PubMedCrossRef

24.

Karikari IO, Isaacs RE (2010) Minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine 35:S294–S301PubMedCrossRef

25.

Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R (2010) Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 35:2273–2281PubMedCrossRef

Title: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease
Authors: Antonio Tsahtsarlis
Martin Wood
Publication date: 01-11-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 11/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2376-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Complications observed

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Complications observed

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2012

Fat infiltration in the lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscles in subjects with sway-back posture

Announcements for issue 11, 2012-ED

Comparative study of spinopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis

Schmorl’s nodes

Comparative evaluation of a novel measurement tool to assess lumbar spine posture and range of motion

A clinical postural model of sagittal alignment in young adolescents before age at peak height velocity