Related Articles

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques have only recently been developed. 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 one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade spondylolisthesis performed with an independent blade retractor system or a traditional open approach. A prospective clinical study of 85 consecutive cases of degenerative and isthmic lower grade spondylolisthesis treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) was done. A total of 85 patients suffering from degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 46) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (n = 39) underwent one-level MiTLIF (n = 42) and OTLIF (n = 43) by two experienced surgeons at one hospital, from June 2006 to March 2008 (minimum 13-month follow-up). The following data were compared between the two groups: the clinical and radiographic results, operative time, blood loss, transfusion needs, X-ray exposure time, postoperative back pain, length of hospital stay, and complications. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index. The operative time, clinical and radiographic results were basically identical in both groups. Comparing with the OTLIF group, the MiTLIF group had significantly lesser blood loss, lesser need for transfusion, lesser postoperative back pain, and shorter length of hospital stay. The radiation time was significantly longer in MiTLIF group. One case of nonunion was observed from each group. Minimally invasive TLIF has similar surgical efficacy with the traditional open TLIF in treating one-level lower grade degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. The minimally invasive technique offers several potential advantages including smaller incisions, less tissue trauma and quicker recovery. However, this technique needs longer X-ray exposure time.

Background

Available clinical data are insufficient for comparing minimally invasive (MI) and open approaches for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). To date, a paucity of literature exists directly comparing minimally invasive (MI) and open approaches for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The purpose of this study was to directly compare safety and effectiveness for these two surgical approaches.

Materials and Methods

Open or minimally invasive TLIF was performed in 63 and 76 patients, respectively. All consecutive minimally invasive TLIF cases were matched with a comparable cohort of open TLIF cases using three variables: diagnosis, number of spinal levels, and history of previous lumbar surgery. Patients were treated for painful degenerative disc disease with or without disc herniation, spondylolisthesis, and/or stenosis at one or two spinal levels. Clinical outcome (self-report measures, e.g., visual analog scale (VAS), patient satisfaction, and MacNab's criteria), operative data (operative time, estimated blood loss), length of hospitalization, and complications were assessed. Average follow-up for patients was 37.5 months.

Results:

The mean change in VAS scores postoperatively was greater (5.2 vs. 4.1) in theopen TLIF patient group (P = 0.3). MacNab's criteria score was excellent/good in 67% and 70% (P = 0.8) of patients in open and minimally invasive TLIF groups, respectively. The overall patient satisfaction was 72.1% and 64.5% (P = 0.4) in open and minimally invasive TLIF groups, respectively. The total mean operative time was 214.9 min for open and 222.5 min for minimally invasive TLIF procedures (P = 0.5). The mean estimated blood loss for minimally invasive TLIF (163.0 ml) was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than the open approach (366.8 ml). The mean duration of hospitalization in the minimally invasive TLIF (3 days) was significantly shorter (P = 0.02) than the open group (4.2 days). The total rate of neurological deficit was 10.5% in the minimally invasive TLIF group compared to 1.6% in the open group (P = 0.02).

Conclusions:

Minimally invasive TLIF technique may provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes compared to open TLIF approach in select population of patients. The potential benefit of minimized tissue disruption, reduced blood loss, and length of hospitalization must be weighted against the increased rate of neural injury-related complications associated with a learning curve.

This paper reviews the current published data regarding open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in relation to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Introduction. MI-TLIF, a modern method for lumbar interbody arthrodesis, has allowed for a minimally invasive method to treat degenerative spinal pathologies. Currently, there is limited literature that compares TLIF directly to MI-TLIF. Thus, we seek to discuss the current literature on these techniques. Methods. Using a PubMed search, we reviewed recent publications of open and MI-TLIF, dating from 2002 to 2012. We discussed these studies and their findings in this paper, focusing on patient-reported outcomes as well as complications. Results. Data found in 14 articles of the literature was analyzed. Using these reports, we found mean follow-up was 20 months. The mean patient study size was 52. Seven of the articles directly compared outcomes of open TLIF with MI-TLIF, such as mean duration of surgery, length of post-operative stay, blood loss, and complications. Conclusion. Although high-class data comparing these two techniques is lacking, the current evidence supports MI-TLIF with outcomes comparable to that of the traditional, open technique. Further prospective, randomized studies will help to further our understanding of this minimally invasive technique.

Degenerative disease of the lumbar spine is common in ageing populations. It causes disturbing back pain, radicular symptoms and lowers the quality of life. We will focus our discussion on the surgical options of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative spinal deformities, which include symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. Through a description of each procedure, we hope to illustrate the potential benefits of TLIF over PLIF. In a retrospective study of 53 ALIF/PLIF patients and 111 TLIF patients we found reduced risk of vessel and nerve injury in TLIF patients due to less exposure of these structures, shortened operative time and reduced intra-operative bleeding. These advantages could be translated to shortened hospital stay, faster recovery period and earlier return to work. The disadvantages of TLIF such as incomplete intervertebral disc and vertebral end-plate removal and potential occult injury to exiting nerve root when under experienced hands are rare. Hence TLIF remains the mainstay of treatment in degenerative deformities of the lumbar spine. However, TLIF being a unilateral transforaminal approach, is unable to decompress the opposite nerve root. This may require contralateral laminotomy, which is a fairly simple procedure. The use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) to treat degenerative lumbar spinal deformity is still in its early stages. Although the initial results appear promising, it remains a difficult operative procedure to master with a steep learning curve. In a recent study comparing 29 MI-TLIF patients and 29 open TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, with no difference in SF-36 scores at six months and two years. Whether it can replace traditional TLIF as the surgery of choice for degenerative lumbar deformity remains unknown and more studies are required to validate the safety and efficiency.

Lumbar fusion is commonly performed to alleviate chronic low back and leg pain secondary to disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis with or without concomitant lumbar spinal stenosis, or chronic lumbar instability. However, the risk of iatrogenic injury during traditional anterior, posterior, and transforaminal open fusion surgery is significant. The axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) system is a minimally invasive fusion device that accesses the lumbar (L4–S1) intervertebral disc spaces via a reproducible presacral approach that avoids critical neurovascular and musculoligamentous structures. Since the AxiaLIF system received marketing clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004, clinical studies of this device have reported high fusion rates without implant subsidence, significant improvements in pain and function, and low complication rates. This paper describes the design and approach of this lumbar fusion system, details the indications for use, and summarizes the clinical experience with the AxiaLIF system to date.

The aim of this study was to compare our experience with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) and open midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A total of 36 patients suffering from isthmic spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease were operated with either a MITLIF (n = 18) or an open TLIF technique (n = 18) with an average follow-up of 22 and 24 months, respectively. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). There was no difference in length of surgery between the two groups. The MITLIF group resulted in a significant reduction of blood loss and had a shorter length of hospital stay. No difference was observed in postoperative pain, initial analgesia consumption, VAS or ODI between the groups. Three pseudarthroses were observed in the MITLIF group although this was not statistically significant. A steeper learning effect was observed for the MITLIF group.

Background:

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus open TLIF, addressing lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) or grade I spondylolisthesis (DS), are associated with shorter hospital stays, decreased blood loss, quicker return to work, and equivalent short- and long-term outcomes. However, no prospective study has assessed whether the extent of intraoperative muscle trauma utilizing creatinine phosphokinase levels (CPK) differently impacts long-term outcomes.

Methods:

Twenty-one patients underwent MIS-TLIF (n = 14) versus open-TLIF (n = 7) for DDD or DS. Serum CPK levels were measured at baseline, and postoperatively (days 1, 7, and 1.5, 3 and 6 months). The correlation between the extent of intraoperative muscle trauma and two-year improvement in functional disability was evaluated (multivariate regression analysis). Additionally, baseline and two-year changes in Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg pain (LP), VAS-back pain (BP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS), and postoperative satisfaction with surgical care were assessed.

Results:

Although the mean change from baseline in the serum creatine phosphokinase level on POD 1 was greater for MIS-TLIF (628.07) versus open-TLF (291.42), this did not correlate with lesser two-year improvement in functional disability. Both cohorts also showed similar two-year improvement in VAS-LP, ODI, and SF-36 PCS/MCS.

Conclusion:

Increased intraoperative muscle trauma unexpectedly observed in higher postoperative CPK levels for MIS-TLIF versus open-TLIF did not correlate with any differences in two-year improvement in pain and functional disability.

Background:

Utilization of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approach for scoliosis offers the patients deformity correction and interbody fusion without the additional morbidity associated with more invasive reconstructive techniques. Published reports on complications associated with these surgical procedures are limited. The purpose of this study was to quantify the intra- and postoperative complications associated with the TLIF surgical approach in patients undergoing surgery for spinal stenosis and degenerative scoliosis correction.

Methods:

This study included patients undergoing TLIF for degenerative scoliosis with neurogenic claudication and painful lumbar degenerative disc disease. The TLIF technique was performed along with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. The average follow-up time was 30 months (range, 15–47).

Results:

A total of 29 patients with an average age of 65.9 years (range, 49–83) were evaluated. TLIFs were performed at 2.2 levels on average (range, 1–4) in addition to 6.0 (range, 4–9) levels of posterolateral instrumented fusion. The preoperative mean lumbar lordosis was 37.6° (range, 16°–55°) compared to 40.5° (range, 26°–59.2°) postoperatively. The preoperative mean coronal Cobb angle was 32.3° (range, 15°–55°) compared to 15.4° (range, 1°–49°) postoperatively. The mean operative time was 528 min (range, 276–906), estimated blood loss was 1091.7 mL (range, 150–2500), and hospitalization time was 8.0 days (range, 3–28). A baseline mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of 7.6 (range, 4–10) decreased to 3.6 (range, 0–8) postoperatively. There were a total of 14 (49%) hardware and/or surgical technique related complications, and 8 (28%) patients required additional surgeries. Five (17%) patients developed pseudoarthrosis. The systemic complications (31%) included death (1), cardiopulmonary arrest with resuscitation (1), myocardial infarction (1), pneumonia (5), and pulmonary embolism (1).

Conclusion:

This study suggests that although the TLIF approach is a feasible and effective method to treat degenerative adult scoliosis, it is associated with a high rate of intra- and postoperative complications and a long recovery process.

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.

Abundant data are available for direct anterior/posterior spine fusion (APF) and some for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), but only few studies from one institution compares the two techniques. One-hundred and thirty-three patients were retrospectively analyzed, 68 having APF and 65 having TLIF. All patients had symptomatic disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. Only those with one or two-level surgeries were included. Clinical chart and radiologic reviews were done, fusion solidity assessed, and functional outcomes determined by pre- and postoperative SF-36 and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and a satisfaction questionnaire. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. The mean operating room time and hospital length of stay were less in the TLIF group. The blood loss was slightly less in the TLIF group (409 vs. 480 cc.). Intra-operative complications were higher in the APF group, mostly due to vein lacerations in the anterior retroperitoneal approach. Postoperative complications were higher in the TLIF group due to graft material extruding against the nerve root or wound drainage. The pseudarthrosis rate was statistically equal (APF 17.6% and TLIF 23.1%) and was higher than most published reports. Significant improvements were noted in both groups for the SF-36 questionnaires. The mean ODI scores at follow-up were 33.5 for the APF and 39.5 for the TLIF group. The patient satisfaction rate was equal for the two groups.

Study Design

This is a retrospective case study.

Purpose

This study was designed to analyze the surgical outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative segmental instability.

Overview of Literature

If the surgical outcomes of a procedure are evaluated together with multiple indications, it is not clear how the procedure helped each subgroup of patients. For the reason that some indications achieve better outcomes than the others, we performed a subgroup analysis using validated outcome measures to demonstrate the optimal indications and the treatment results of TLIF.

Methods

We conducted subgroup analyses by comparing the prospectively collecting data from the consecutive patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive TLIF for the treatment of the following 3 subgroups of indications: 23 cases of low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, 24 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 19 cases of degenerative segmental instability.

Results

The average duration of follow up was 36.1 ± 9.9 months (range, 24 to 63 months). The preoperative pain and disability scores were significantly improved at final postoperative follow-up in all the subgroups (all measurements: p < 0.0001). The 3 subgroups exhibited an equivalent improvement of the pain and disability scores at the final follow-up. The rates of radiographic solid fusion and complications were also similar among the 3 groups.

Conclusions

Our data suggests that minimally invasive TLIF optimally and equivalently alleviates all of the associated symptoms and disabilities from low-grade spondylolisthesis and degenerative segmental instability. Furthermore, these patients seem to have optimal surgical indications for minimally invasive TLIF, while maintaining favorable surgical outcomes.

Background

Little is known about the biomechanical effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages in different positioning and various posterior implants used after decompressive surgery. The use of the various implants will induce the kinematic and mechanical changes in range of motion (ROM) and stresses at the surgical and adjacent segments. Unilateral pedicle screw with or without supplementary facet screw fixation in the minimally invasive TLIF procedure has not been ascertained to provide adequate stability without the need to expose on the contralateral side. This study used finite element (FE) models to investigate biomechanical differences in ROM and stress on the neighboring structures after TLIF cages insertion in conjunction with posterior fixation.

Methods

A validated finite-element (FE) model of L1-S1 was established to implant three types of cages (TLIF with a single moon-shaped cage in the anterior or middle portion of vertebral bodies, and TLIF with a left diagonally placed ogival-shaped cage) from the left L4-5 level after unilateral decompressive surgery. Further, the effects of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF vs. BPSF) in each TLIF cage model was compared to analyze parameters, including stresses and ROM on the neighboring annulus, cage-vertebral interface and pedicle screws.

Results

All the TLIF cages positioned with BPSF showed similar ROM (<5%) at surgical and adjacent levels, except TLIF with an anterior cage in flexion (61% lower) and TLIF with a left diagonal cage in left lateral bending (33% lower) at surgical level. On the other hand, the TLIF cage models with left UPSF showed varying changes of ROM and annulus stress in extension, right lateral bending and right axial rotation at surgical level. In particular, the TLIF model with a diagonal cage, UPSF, and contralateral facet screw fixation stabilize segmental motion of the surgical level mostly in extension and contralaterally axial rotation. Prominent stress shielded to the contralateral annulus, cage-vertebral interface, and pedicle screw at surgical level. A supplementary facet screw fixation shared stresses around the neighboring tissues and revealed similar ROM and stress patterns to those models with BPSF.

Conclusions

TLIF surgery is not favored for asymmetrical positioning of a diagonal cage and UPSF used in contralateral axial rotation or lateral bending. Supplementation of a contralateral facet screw is recommended for the TLIF construct.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) has become increasingly common and is characterized by multilevel disc herniation and lumbar spondylolisthesis, which are difficult to treat. The current study aimed to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes and value of the combined use of microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of multilevel DLSS with spondylolisthesis, and to compare the combination with traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). A total of 26 patients with multilevel DLSS and spondylolisthesis underwent combined MED and MI-TLIF surgery using a single cage and pedicle rod-screw system. These cases were compared with 27 patients who underwent traditional PLIF surgery during the same period. Data concerning incision length, surgery time, blood loss, time of bed rest and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score prior to and following surgery were analyzed statistically. Statistical significance was reached in terms of incision length, blood loss and the time of bed rest following surgery (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the surgery time and ODI scores of the two groups. The combined use of MED and MI-TLIF has the advantages of reduced blood loss, less damage to the paraspinal soft tissue, shorter length of incision, shorter bed rest time, improved outcomes and shorter recovery times and has similar short-term clinical outcomes to traditional PLIF.

The authors review and compare posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A review of the literature is performed wherein the history, indications for surgery, surgical procedures with their respective biomechanical advantages, potential complications, and grafting substances are presented. Along with the technical advancements and improvements in grafting substances, the indications and use of PLIF and TLIF have increased. The rate of arthrodesis has been shown to increase given placement of bone graft along the weight-bearing axis. The fusion rate across the disc space is further enhanced with the placement of posterior pedicle screw–rod constructs and the application of an osteoinductive material. The chief advantages of the TLIF procedure compared with the PLIF procedure included a decrease in potential neurological injury, improvement in lordotic alignment given graft placement within the anterior column, and preservation of posterior column integrity through minimizing lamina, facet, and pars dissection.

The authors review and compare posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A review of the literature is performed wherein the history, indications for surgery, surgical procedures with their respective biomechanical advantages, potential complications, and grafting substances are presented. Along with the technical advancements and improvements in grafting substances, the indications and use of PLIF and TLIF have increased. The rate of arthrodesis has been shown to increase given placement of bone graft along the weight-bearing axis. The fusion rate across the disc space is further enhanced with the placement of posterior pedicle screw–rod constructs and the application of an osteoinductive material. The chief advantages of the TLIF procedure compared with the PLIF procedure included a decrease in potential neurological injury, improvement in lordotic alignment given graft placement within the anterior column, and preservation of posterior column integrity through minimizing lamina, facet, and pars dissection.

Lumbar spinal fusion is advancing with minimally invasive techniques, bone graft alternatives, and new implants. This has resulted in significant reductions of operative time, duration of hospitalization, and higher success in fusion rates. However, costs have increased as many new technologies are expensive. This study was carried out to investigate the clinical outcomes and fusion rates of a low implant load construct of unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) which reduced the cost of the posterior implants by almost 50%. Nineteen consecutive patients who underwent single level TLIF with this construct were included in the study. Sixteen patients had a TLIF allograft interbody spacer placed, while in three a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage was used. Follow-up ranged from 15 to 54 months with a mean of 32 months. A clinical and radiographic evaluation was carried out preoperatively and at multiple time points following surgery. An overall improvement in Oswestry scores and visual analogue scales for leg and back pain (VAS) was observed. Three patients underwent revision surgery due to recurrence of back pain. All patients showed radiographic evidence of fusion from 9 to 26 months (mean 19) following surgery. This study suggests that unilateral pedicle screws and a contralateral translaminar screw are a cheaper and viable option for single level lumbar fusion.

Background

The main indications for surgery for old thoracolumbar fractures are pain, progressive deformity, neurological damage, or increasing neurological deficit. These fractures have been one of the greatest therapeutic challenges in spinal surgery. Anterior, posterior, or combined anterior and posterior procedures have been successful to some extent. As far as we know, there is no report in the literature of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for old thoracolumbar fracture and dislocation.

Methods

Case report.

Results

A 26-year-old man with old fracture and dislocation of T12/L1 was treated with TLIF. At 12 months' follow-up, multi-slice computed tomography (CT) scans showed that solid fusion had been achieved between T12 and L1. Back pain had resolved completely at 2-year follow-up.

Conclusions

We performed TLIF for in a man with old fracture and dislocation of T12/L1, with good clinical outcome. TLIF might be an option in the treatment of old thoracolumbar fracture.

Objective

A minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has recently been introduced. However, MIS TLIF is a technically challenging procedure. The authors performed retrospective analysis about MIS TLIF using a single interbody cage.

Methods

Twenty-eight consecutive patients were treated by MIS TLIF. Of these 28 patients, 20 patients were included in this retrospective study. Perioperative, clinical, and radiologic outcomes were assessed. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scores (VAS). Fusion rates and cross-sections of operated spinal canals were assessed by CT.

Results

Twelve patients underwent MIS TLIF at one segment and 8 patients at two segments (L3/4: 4, L4/5: 17, L5/S1: 7). Operation time for a single segment was 131.7 min and for two segment was 201.4 min, and corresponding blood losses were 208.3 mL and 481.2 mL, respectively. ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved at 6 months postop (ODI from 30.32 to 15. 54, VAS from 7.80 to 2.20, p = 0.001). Twenty-two segments (78.6%) achieved grade I fusion, 4 segments (14.3%) achieved grade II, 2 segments (7.1%) achieved grade III and 0 segments achieved grade IV at 12 months. Postoperatively at 12 months, spinal canal cross sectional areas at disc spaces significantly increased from 157.5 to 294.3 mm2 (p = 0.012).

Conclusion

MIS TLIF achieved good clinical outcomes and high fusion rates. Our findings show that MIS TLIF performed with a single interbody cage and a tubular retractor system can be used as a standard MIS TLIF technique.

Pseudarthrosis remains a significant problem in spinal fusion. The objective of our study was to investigate the effects of autologous growth factors (AGF) in instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody spinal fusion (TLIF). A prospective review was carried out of 23 patients who underwent TLIF with application of AGF, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Comparison with our historical cohort (without AGF application) was performed. Mean age at surgery was 44.3 years in the AGF treatment group. Twelve had a positive smoking history. Fourteen had undergone previous spinal surgeries. Thirteen received one-level fusions and ten received two-level fusions. The radiographic results showed a fusion rate of 100% in one-level fusions and 90% in two-level fusions. There was no significant difference in pseudarthrosis rates between the AGF treatment group and historical cohort. Excluding the cases with pseudarthrosis, there was faster bony healing in patients who had been treated with AGF application. This study indicates that although AGF may demonstrate faster fusions, it does not result in an overall increase in spinal fusion rates. Further studies are needed before AGF can routinely be used as an adjunct in spinal fusion.

Background

To assess the radiographic results in patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), particularly the changes in segmental lordosis in the fusion segment, whole lumbar lordosis and disc height.

Methods

Twenty six cases of single-level TLIF in degenerative lumbar diseases were analyzed. The changes in segmental lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis, and disc height were evaluated before surgery, after surgery and at the final follow-up.

Results

The segmental lordosis increased significantly after surgery but decreased at the final follow-up. Compared to the preoperative values, the segmental lordosis did not change significantly at the final follow-up. Whole lumbar lordosis at the final follow-up was significantly higher than the preoperative values. The disc height was significantly higher in after surgery than before surgery (p = 0.000) and the disc height alter surgery and at the final follow-up was similar.

Conclusions

When performing TLIF, careful surgical techniques and attention are needed to restore and maintain the segmental lordosis at the fusion level.

The goal of a fusion of the lumbar spine is to obtain a primary solid arthrodesis thus to alleviate pain. Different circumferential fusion techniques have been described such as combined anterior–posterior fusion (APF), instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The TLIF procedure has rapidly gained popularity; because of its posterolateral extracanalar discectomy and fusion, it has been reported as a safe technique, without the potential complications described when using combined APF and PLIF techniques. A retrospective clinical and radiographic study was performed. The database of our Center was interrogated in a retrospective way to extract data from patients that underwent a one or two level lumbar fusion with TLIF approach. All patients had symptomatic disc degeneration of the lumbar spine. One hundred and fourteen levels fused from 2003 to 2008. All patients were operated in the same center. All the patients were operated by the same surgical team. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 3 months and 1 and 2 years follow-up. The spine was approached through a classic posterior midline incision and subperiosteal muscular detachment. The side of facetectomy was chosen according to the subject’s symptoms of leg pain if present. A posterolateral annulotomy was made and subtotal discectomy was performed and the hyaline cartilage of endplates was removed. Once the surgeon was satisfied with endplate preparation, a banana shaped allograft spacer was inserted through the annulotomy and placed anteriorly. Additional autograft locally harvested from decompression was packed behind the allograft spacer in all cases. Laminae and the remaining contralateral facet joint were decorticated, and packed with bone graft (local autologous and allograft chips in some cases). The posterior fusion was instrumented with pedicle screws and titanium rods. The TLIF procedure had led to shortened surgical times, less neurologic injury, and improved overall outcomes. The introduction of the TLIF procedure has allowed surgeons to achieve successful fusion without the risk of nerve root tethering that is seen so frequently with standard PLIF techniques.

Study Design

This is a retrospective study that was done according to clinical and radiological evaluation.

Purpose

We analyzed the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody single level fusion.

Overview of Literature

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is effective surgical method for treating degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

The study was conducted on 56 patients who were available for longer than 2 years (range, 24 to 45 months) follow-up after undergoing minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody single level fusion. Clinical evaluation was performed by the analysis of the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Kirkaldy-Willis score. For the radiological evaluation, the disc space height, the segmental lumbar lordotic angle and the whole lumbar lordotic angle were analyzed. At the final follow-up after operation, the fusion rate was analyzed according to Bridwell's anterior fusion grade.

Results

For the evaluation of clinical outcomes, the VAS score was reduced from an average of 6.7 prior to surgery to an average of 1.8 at the final follow-up. The ODI was decreased from an average of 36.5 prior to surgery to an average of 12.8 at the final follow-up. In regard to the clinical outcomes evaluated by the Kirkaldy-Willis score, better than good results were obtained in 52 cases (92.9%). For the radiological evaluation, the disc space height (p = 0.002), and the whole lumbar lordotic angle (p = 0.001) were increased at the final follow-up. At the final follow-up, regarding the interbody fusion, radiological union was obtained in 54 cases (95.4%).

Conclusions

We think that if surgeons become familiar with the surgical techniques, this is a useful method for minimally invasive spinal surgery.

We set out to determine whether a minimally invasive approach for one-level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion reduced undesirable changes in the multifidus muscle, compared to a conventional open approach. We also investigated associations between muscle injury during surgery (creatinine kinase levels), clinical outcome and changes in the multifidus at follow-up. We studied 59 patients treated by one team of surgeons at a single institution (minimally invasive approach in 28 and conventional open approach in 31, voluntarily chosen by patients). More than 1 year postoperatively, all the patients were followed up with the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and 16 patients from each group were evaluated using MRI. This enabled the cross-sectional area (CSA) of lean multifidus muscle, and the T2 signal intensity ratio of multifidus to psoas muscle, to be compared at the operative and adjacent levels. The minimally invasive group had less postoperative back pain (P < 0.001) and lower postoperative ODI scores (P = 0.001). Multifidus atrophy was less in the minimally invasive group (P < 0.001), with mean reductions in CSA of 12.2% at the operative and 8.5% at the adjacent levels, compared to 36.8% and 29.3% in the conventional open group. The increase in the multifidus:psoas T2 signal intensity ratio was similarly less marked in the minimally invasive group where values increased by 10.6% at the operative and 8.3% at the adjacent levels, compared to 34.4 and 22.7% in the conventional open group (P < 0.001). These changes in multifidus CSA and T2 signal intensity ratio were significantly correlated with postoperative creatinine kinase levels, VAS scores and ODI scores (P < 0.01). The minimally invasive approach caused less change in multifidus, less postoperative back pain and functional disability than conventional open approach. Muscle damage during surgery was significantly correlated with long-term multifidus muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration. Furthermore these degenerative changes of multifidus were also significantly correlated with long-term clinical outcome.

This study is to compare the therapeutic effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw fixation on treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. A retrospective analysis of 187 patients to compare the complications and associated predictive factors of the two techniques of one level lumbar fusion. Ninety-one had PLIF with two cages and pedicle fixation (group 1), and ninety-six had TLIF with one cage and pedicle fixation (group 2). The two groups had similar age and sex distribution, and level of pain. Inclusion criteria and outcome measurements were identical in both groups. The two groups were operated on with autograft and cage with pedicle fixation. Before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up, pain (VAS) and functional disability (JOA) were quantified. The results showed there were no intraoperative deaths in our study. In the end 176 cases had 2-year follow-up while 11 cases were lost to follow-up. The follow-up rate was 93.4% (85/91) in the PLIF group and 94.8% (91/96) in the TLIF group. All patients had bone fusion, and there were no cases of cage extrusion. The pain index improved from 7.08 ± 1.13 to 2.84 ± 0.89 in PLIF patients and improved from 7.18 ± 1.09 to 2.84 ± 0.91 in TLIF patients (P < 0.001). There were 42 cases of excellent, 29 cases of good, 11 cases of general, and 3 cases of poor results in PLIF group. There were 46 cases of excellent, 31 case of good, 12 case of general, and 2 cases of poor results in TLIF group. The JOA score in all patients was 84.1% of good or excellent (83.5% in PLIF and 84.6% in TLIF, P > 0.05). The average preoperative slip was 30.1 ± 7.2% in PLIF group while in the TLIF it was 31.4 ± 8.3%. Immediately post operatively it was reduced to 7.3 ± 2.1% and 7.4 ± 2.7% and at last F/U it was 8.1 ± 2.8% and 8.2 ± 2.6%, respectively. The average of reduction rate was 75.2 ± 6.4% in PLIF and 75.4 ± 6.2 in TLIF on the initial post operatively X-ray, and 72.6 ± 5.2% and 72.4 ± 5.4% on the follow-up. The percentage rate, reduction rate and lost of reduction rate between the two groups was similar (P > 0.05). The average pre operative disk and foramen height in the PLIF group improved from 6.8 ± 2.3 and 14.2 ± 1.7 preoperatively to 11.6 ± 1.5 and 18.7 ± 1.8 post operatively, respectively. At last follow up there was minimal lost of correction down to 11.24 ± 1.2 and 18.1 ± 1.8, respectively. Similarly in the TLIF group, pre operative disk and foramen height were improved from 6.7 ± 1.7 and 14.1 ± 1.8 to 11.4 ± 1.6 and 18.5 ± 1.6 immediately post operative. At last follow up minimal lost of correction was noted with average disc height of 11.3 ± 1.4 and 18.2 ± 1.7. Both techniques achieve statistical significance in restoration of disc and foraminal (P < 0.01); however, there was no statistical difference between the two techniques. In conclusion, interbody fusion with either a PLIF technique or a TLIF technique provides good outcomes in the treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. The TLIF procedure is simpler and is as safe and effective as the PLIF technique.

Objective

Although unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is widely used because of its benefits, it does have some technical limitations. Removal of disk material and endplate cartilage is difficult, but essential, for proper fusion in unilateral surgery, leading to debate regarding the surgery's limitations in removing the disk material on the contralateral side. Therefore, authors have conducted a randomized, comparative cadaver study in order to evaluate the efficiency of the surgery when using conventional instruments in the preparation of the disk space and when using the recently developed high-pressure water jet system, SpineJet™ XL.

Methods

Two spine surgeons performed diskectomies and disk preparations for TLIF in 20 lumbar disks. All cadaver/surgeon/level allocations for preparation using the SpineJet™ XL (HydroCision Inc., Boston, MA, USA) or conventional tools were randomized. All assessments were performed by an independent spine surgeon who was unaware of the randomizations. The authors measured the areas (cm2) and calculated the proportion (%) of the disk surfaces. The duration of the disk preparation and number of instrument insertions and withdrawals required to complete the disk preparation were recorded for all procedures.

Results

The proportion of the area of removed disk tissue versus that of potentially removable disk tissue, the proportion of the area of removed endplate cartilage, and the area of removed disk tissue in the contralateral posterior portion showed 74.5 ± 17.2%, 18.5 ± 12.03%, and 67.55 ± 16.10%, respectively, when the SpineJet™ XL was used, and 52.6 ± 16.9%, 22.8 ± 17.84%, and 51.64 ± 19.63%, respectively, when conventional instrumentations were used. The results also showed that when the SpineJet™ XL was used, the proportion of the area of removed disk tissue versus that of potentially removable disk tissue and the area of removed disk tissue in the contralateral posterior portion were statistically significantly high (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, respectively). Also, compared to conventional instrumentations, the duration required to complete disk space preparation was shorter, and the frequency of instrument use and the numbers of insertions/withdrawals were lower when the SpineJet™ XL was used.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that hydrosurgery using the SpineJet™ XL unit allows for the preparation of a greater portion of disk space and that it is less traumatic and allows for more precise endplate preparation without damage to the bony endplate. Furthermore, the SpineJet™ XL appears to provide tangible benefits in terms of disk space preparation for graft placement, particularly when using the unilateral TLIF approach.