Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis.
Cortical bone trajectory
Midline lumbar fusion
Minimally invasive procedure
Spondylolisthesis
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 May 2024
09 May 2024
Historique:
received:
31
01
2024
accepted:
22
04
2024
medline:
10
5
2024
pubmed:
10
5
2024
entrez:
9
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis. This study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed. There was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease. In this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis.
METHODS
METHODS
This study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38725087
doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04764-2
pii: 10.1186/s13018-024-04764-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
286Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lenz M, Mohamud K, Bredow J, Oikonomidis S, Eysel P, Scheyerer MJ. Comparison of different approaches in lumbosacral spinal Fusion surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Asian Spine J. 2022;16(1):141–9.
doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0405
pubmed: 33389967
Tang L, Wu Y, Jing D, Xu Y, Wang C, Pan J. A bayesian network meta-analysis of 5 different fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Med (Baltim). 2020;99(14):e19639.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019639
Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg. 2002;49:499–517.
pubmed: 12506566
Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Pracyk J. Minimally invasive Versus Open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion for single-level degenerative disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:358–65. e4.
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.162
pubmed: 31476471
Qin R, Liu B, Zhou P, Yao Y, Hao J, Yang K, et al. 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.
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.202
pubmed: 30414524
El- Desouky A, Silva PS, Ferreira A, Wibawa GA, Vaz R, Pereira P. How accurate is fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement in minimally invasive TLIF? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021;205:106623.
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106623
pubmed: 33857812
Zhang RJ, Zhou LP, Zhang L, Zhang HQ, Ge P, Jia CY et al. The Rates and Risk factors of Intra-pedicular Accuracy and Proximal Facet Joint violation for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: cortical bone trajectory versus traditional trajectory pedicle screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021.
Regev GJ, Lee YP, Taylor WR, Garfin SR, Kim CW. Nerve injury to the posterior rami medial branch during the insertion of pedicle screws: comparison of mini-open versus percutaneous pedicle screw insertion techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(11):1239–42.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819e2c5c
pubmed: 19444073
Boelderl A, Daniaux H, Kathrein A, Maurer H. Danger of damaging the medial branches of the posterior rami of spinal nerves during a dorsomedian approach to the spine. Clin Anat. 2002;15(2):77–81.
doi: 10.1002/ca.1099
pubmed: 11877783
Lee CK, Kim D, An SB, Shin DA, Ha Y, Kim KN et al. An optimal cortical bone trajectory technique to prevent early surgical complications. Br J Neurosurg. 2020:1–7.
Song T, Hsu WK, Ye T. Lumbar pedicle cortical bone trajectory screw. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(21):3808–13.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20141887
pubmed: 25382340
Formby PM, Kang DG, Helgeson MD, Wagner SC. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in patients with osteoporosis. Global Spine J. 2016;6(7):660–4.
doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1578804
pmcid: 5077707
pubmed: 27781185
Weiser L, Huber G, Sellenschloh K, Viezens L, Puschel K, Morlock MM, et al. Insufficient stability of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical correlation of bone mineral density and pedicle screw fixation strength. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(11):2891–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5091-x
pubmed: 28391382
Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, Whitecloud TS 3rd, Cook SD. Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(21):2415–20.
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199411000-00008
pubmed: 7846594
Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J. 2009;9(5):366–73.
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008
pubmed: 18790684
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(4):E240–5.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000116
pubmed: 24253778
Hu JN, Yang XF, Li CM, Li XX, Ding YZ. Comparison of cortical bone trajectory versus pedicle screw techniques in lumbar fusion surgery: a meta-analysis. Med (Baltim). 2019;98(33):e16751.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016751
Meyerding HW, Spondyloptosis. Surg Gynaecol Obstet. 1932;54:371–7.
Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG, Fischer CR, Petrizzo A, Protopsaltis TS, et al. Comparative analysis of two transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion techniques: open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(9):E555–60.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002903
pubmed: 30325884
Berjano P, Damilano M, Ismael M, Formica C, Garbossa D. Minimally invasive PLIF with divergent, cortical trajectory pedicle screws. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 5):654–5.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3802-8
pubmed: 25672804
Matsukawa K, Taguchi E, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, et al. Evaluation of the fixation strength of pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: what is the Ideal trajectory for optimal fixation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(15):E873–8.
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000983
pubmed: 26222663
Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(12):1410–8.
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199506020-00014
pubmed: 7676341
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780–4.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z
pmcid: 2989221
pubmed: 20411281
Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–53.
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
pubmed: 11074683
Wu X, Shi J, Wu J, Cheng Y, Peng K, Chen J, et al. Pedicle screw loosening: the value of radiological imagings and the identification of risk factors assessed by extraction torque during screw removal surgery. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):6.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-1046-0
pmcid: 6322238
pubmed: 30616575
Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo R, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH. Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(5):990–1004.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3853-x
pubmed: 25749690
Ellwood S, Shupper P, Kaufman A. A retrospective review of spinal Radiofrequency Neurotomy procedures in patients with metallic posterior spinal instrumentation - is it safe? Pain Physician. 2018;21(5):E477–82.
doi: 10.36076/ppj.2018.5.E477
pubmed: 30282395
Klessinger S, editor. Safety and Efficacy of Lumbar Spine Radiofrequency Neurotomy in the Presence of Posterior Pedicle Screws2016.
Lau P, Mercer S, Govind J, Bogduk N. The surgical anatomy of lumbar medial branch neurotomy (facet denervation). Pain Med. 2004;5(3):289–98.
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2004.04042.x
pubmed: 15367308
Zhou L. The anatomy of dorsal Ramus nerves and its implications in Lower Back Pain. Neurosci Med. 2012;03:192–201.
doi: 10.4236/nm.2012.32025
Kasukawa Y, Miyakoshi N, Hongo M, Ishikawa Y, Kudo D, Shimada Y. Short-term results of transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion using pedicle screw with cortical bone trajectory compared with conventional trajectory. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(3):440–8.
doi: 10.4184/asj.2015.9.3.440
pmcid: 4472594
pubmed: 26097661
Gonchar I, Kotani Y, Matsui Y, Miyazaki T, Iwasaki N, editors. Clinical Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion2017.
Wu FL, Dang L, Zhou H, Yu M, Wei F, Jiang L, et al. Two-year outcomes of midline lumbar Fusion Versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion in the treatment of L4-L5 degenerative disease. Biomed Environ Sci. 2020;33(11):839–48.
pubmed: 33771237
Elmekaty M, Kotani Y, Mehy EE, Robinson Y, Tantawy AE, Sekiguchi I, et al. Clinical and radiological comparison between three different minimally invasive Surgical Fusion techniques for single-level lumbar isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis: minimally invasive Surgical Posterolateral Fusion versus minimally invasive Surgical Transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion versus midline lumbar Fusion. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(5):870–9.
doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.12.5.870
pmcid: 6147873
pubmed: 30213170
Silva PS, Jardim A, Pereira J, Sousa R, Vaz R, Pereira P. Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(9):3210–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07847-6
pubmed: 37422769