Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

Study Design. Prospective cohort study. Objective. To determine whether minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using the tubular retractor system reduces the approach-related morbidity inherent in conventional open surgery. Summary of Background Data. Posterior lumbar fusion using the tubular retractor system has been reported and described well. Supporters have claimed that minimally invasive techniques reduce soft-tissue trauma, blood loss, postoperative pain, transfusion needs, and the length of hospital stay, as compared with reports describing the traditional open procedure. However, there are few studies of minimally invasive TLIF, especially studies that directly compared minimally invasive and open approaches in a single center. Methods. Between May 2005 and December 2006, a total of 62 patients underwent 1-level TLIF by 1 surgeon in 1 hospital. Of 62 patients, 32 underwent minimally invasive TLIF using the tubular retractor system, and the other 30 underwent the traditional open procedure. The operative duration, blood loss, complications, and recovery time were recorded. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Oswestry Disability Index and the Visual Analog Scale. The soft-tissue injury was assessed by measuring serum creatine kinase. Radiographic images were obtained before surgery and during follow-up. Results. The minimally invasive group was found to have reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions, less postoperative back pain, lower serum creatine kinase on the third postoperative day, a shorter time to ambulation, and a briefer hospital stay. The Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale scores were significantly lower in the minimally invasive group during follow-up. However, the open group had a shorter operative duration. The complications in the 2 groups were similar, but 2 cases of screw malposition occurred in the minimally invasive group. Conclusion. Minimally invasive TLIF as a management of 1-level degenerative lumbar diseases is superior to the traditional open procedure in terms of postoperative back pain, total blood loss, need for transfusion, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay, soft-tissue injury, and functional recovery. However, this procedure takes longer operative duration and requires close attention to the risk of technical complications. Longer-term studies involving a larger sample are needed to validate the long-term efficacy of minimally TLIF.

[1]  A. Miyauchi,et al.  Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Degeneration After PLIF , 2004, Spine.

[2]  Viola Bullmann,et al.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[3]  A. Hilibrand,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[4]  Sang-Ho Lee,et al.  Single-level instrumented mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. , 2008, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[5]  J. Bendo,et al.  Adjacent segment degeneration following spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. , 2007, Bulletin of the NYU hospital for joint diseases.

[6]  Kevin T Foley,et al.  Minimal Access Surgical Techniques in the Management of the Painful Lumbar Motion Segment , 2005, Spine.

[7]  P. Kambin Re: Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003;28:S26-35. , 2004, Spine.

[8]  R. Fessler,et al.  Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. , 2003, Neurosurgery.

[9]  F. Castro,et al.  Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. , 2001, Journal of spinal disorders.

[10]  Z. Chao,et al.  Microendoscopic discectomy, a less traumatic procedure for lumbar disk herniation. , 2007, Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi.

[11]  D. Rivet,et al.  Clinical outcomes and complications associated with pedicle screw fixation-augmented lumbar interbody fusion. , 2004, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[12]  G. Rodas,et al.  Fast and slow myosins as markers of muscle injury , 2007, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[13]  C. Niu,et al.  Relation Between Laminectomy and Development of Adjacent Segment Instability After Lumbar Fusion With Pedicle Fixation , 2004, Spine.

[14]  Paul Park,et al.  Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar or Lumbosacral Fusion: Review of the Literature , 2004, Spine.

[15]  T. Lowe,et al.  Unilateral Transforaminal Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  S. Ondra,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Surgical Technique and Results in 24 Patients , 2004, Neurosurgery.

[17]  R. Bindal,et al.  Intraoperative electromyography monitoring in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[18]  Alexander R. Vaccaro,et al.  Lumbar Adjacent Segment Degeneration and Disease After Arthrodesis and Total Disc Arthroplasty , 2008, Spine.

[19]  Kevin T Foley,et al.  Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion , 2003, Spine.

[20]  Kyung-Soo Suk,et al.  The Quantitative Analysis of Tissue Injury Markers After Mini-Open Lumbar Fusion , 2006, Spine.

[21]  J. Adachi,et al.  Biochemical measurement of muscle injury created by lumbar surgery. , 2007, Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale.

[22]  T. Lowe,et al.  Unilateral Transforaminal Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): Indications, Technique, and 2-Year Results , 2002, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[23]  V. Vougioukas,et al.  PERCUTANEOUS TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION FOR THE TREATMENT OF DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR INSTABILITY , 2007, Neurosurgery.

[24]  R. Fessler,et al.  A Minimally Invasive Technique for Decompression of the Lumbar Spine , 2002, Spine.

[25]  Kevin T Foley,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): Technical Feasibility and Initial Results , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[26]  F. Pei,et al.  Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[27]  Avinash G. Patwardhan,et al.  Comparison of Posterior and Transforaminal Approaches to Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2001, Spine.

[28]  Teera Tangviriyapaiboon,et al.  Mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2008, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[29]  P. Mummaneni,et al.  The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[30]  Richard G. Fessler,et al.  Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2002, Neurosurgery.

[31]  P. Mummaneni,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Complications, and Early Results , 2001, Neurosurgery.