Spondylolisthesis Fusion: Comparison of Grade I Versus Grade II Isthmic Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody

Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is often used to treat lowgrade isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). No studies have compared surgical outcomes for grade I and II IS following MISTLIF. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to compare outcomes between patients with grade I and II IS following MIS-TLIF. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent a primary 1-level MIS-TLIF for treatment of IS between 2007 and 2015. Grade I patients underwent a unilateral tubular approach with a single interbody cage and bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Grade II patients underwent a bilateral tubular approach with bilateral interbody cage and pedicle screw placement. Baseline patient demographics and characteristics were compared using Student t test and v analysis. Differences in periand postoperative outcomes were assessed using Poisson regression with robust error variance or linear regression adjusted for perioperative variables. Results: A total of 58 patients with IS underwent MIS-TLIF; 21 (36.2%) were grade I and 37 (63.8%) were grade II. The grade I cohort was younger (42.2 versus 50.6 years, P1⁄4 .029); no other differences in preoperative variables were observed. No significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative visual analogue scale scores, or complication and revision rates were demonstrated between cohorts. Arthrodesis rate was lower in the grade I cohort, though not statistically significant. Conclusions: Despite the grade I cohort being younger with less-severe diagnoses, the grade II cohort experienced similar outcomes. This finding may be due to the grade II cohort receiving bilateral cages, potentially providing a better fusion environment. Clinical Relevance: These results suggest that MIS-TLIF provides sufficient stabilization and fusion for treatment of grade II IS despite increased vertebral body displacement. In addition, MIS-TLIF with bilateral approach and interbody cage placement should be examined for treatment of high-grade IS cases.

[1]  N. Theodore,et al.  Biomechanics of Nested Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Cages. , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[2]  S. Kuh,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: Comparison Between Isthmic and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. , 2015, World neurosurgery.

[3]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for Spondylolisthesis in 282 Patients: In Situ Arthrodesis versus Reduction. , 2015, World neurosurgery.

[4]  Junyoung Ahn,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. , 2015, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[5]  P. Korovessis,et al.  Management of spondylolysis and low-grade spondylolisthesis in fine athletes. A comprehensive review , 2015, European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.

[6]  B. Skovrlj,et al.  Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine. , 2015, World journal of clinical cases.

[7]  X. Weng,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Circumferential Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[8]  S. Giannini,et al.  Changes in spino-pelvic alignment after surgical treatment of high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis by a posterior approach: a report of 41 cases , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[9]  A. Marquez-Lara,et al.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. , 2014, Annals of translational medicine.

[10]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Investigation of different cage designs and mechano-regulation algorithms in the lumbar interbody fusion process - a finite element analysis. , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  A. Weil,et al.  A Novel Minimally Invasive Technique for the Treatment of High-grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Using a Posterior Transsacral Rod , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[12]  Y. Rampersaud,et al.  Minimal access bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[13]  J. Dettori,et al.  Percutaneous minimally invasive versus open spine surgery in the treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar junction: a comparative effectiveness review , 2012, Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal.

[14]  J. H. Oppenheimer,et al.  Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. , 2009, Neurosurgical focus.

[15]  M. Herman,et al.  Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in the child and adolescent: a new classification. , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  Y. Floman.  Progression of Lumbosacral Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in Adults , 2000, Spine.

[17]  D Schlenzka,et al.  Isthmic spondylolisthesis in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, epidemiology, and natural history with special reference to disk abnormality and mode of treatment. , 1993, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  L. Wiltse,et al.  Terminology and measurement of spondylolisthesis. , 1983, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  R. Winter,et al.  Management of severe spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. , 1979, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  A. Samdani,et al.  Classification of Spondylolisthesis , 2015 .

[21]  P. A. Cripton,et al.  Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density , 1998, European Spine Journal.