Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Technology: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis of 50 Patients.

OBJECTIVE Interbody cage implantation during minimally invasive surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) presents challenges. Expandable cages when collapsed facilitate insertion; subsequent expansion in situ optimizes endplate contact. This report describes clinical and radiographic outcomes of MIS TLIF with an expandable cage. METHODS Researchers retrospectively analyzed prospective data from 50 patients (62 operative levels) when an expandable interbody spacer was combined with transpedicular posterior stabilization. Clinical outcomes, fusion rates, incidence of reoperation, and device-related complications were obtained from clinical and radiographic records. RESULTS Mean patient age was 58.1 years (56.2% female). In all, 76% (38/50) underwent 1-level fusion, and 24% (12/50) 2-level fusion. Average operative time was 239.9 ± 86.9 minutes for 1-level and 350.3 ± 74.9 minutes for 2-level procedures; average hospital stay overall was 2.5 ± 1.7 days, with no intraoperative complications reported. Mean visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased significantly from preoperative to all postoperative assessment times (6, 12, and 24 months) (P < 0.05). Intervertebral disc height (8.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.3 ± 1.9 mm) increased significantly, with increases sustained over 24 months (P < 0.05). Postoperative radiographs showed no evidence of cage migration, subsidence, or collapse and suggested fusion at all operative levels by 12 months and 24 months (93%, 54/58; 97%, 28/29), respectively. CONCLUSIONS An expandable interbody cage led to significant improvement in clinical and radiographic outcomes after MIS TLIF, including intervertebral disc height restoration and high fusion rates, with no evidence of device-related complications.

[1]  M. McGirt,et al.  Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[2]  A D Steffee,et al.  A Carbon Fiber Implant to Aid Interbody Lumbar Fusion: Two‐Year Clinical Results in the First 26 Patients , 1993, Spine.

[3]  I. Karikari,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Techniques and Outcomes , 2010, Spine.

[4]  D. Rouben,et al.  Long-term Durability of Minimal Invasive Posterior Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Clinical and Radiographic Follow-up , 2011, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[5]  W. J. Elias,et al.  Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  Fang Xiangqian,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases , 2010, Spine.

[7]  B. Cunningham,et al.  The Indications for Interbody Fusion Cages in the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Analysis of 120 Cases , 2005, Spine.

[8]  M. Singh,et al.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. , 2014, The Ochsner journal.

[9]  J. Brantigan,et al.  A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. , 1993 .

[10]  Bernadette A. Thomas,et al.  Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 , 2012, The Lancet.

[11]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Chronic Low Back Pain and Fusion: A Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2002, Spine.

[12]  K. Deluzio,et al.  Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period , 2012, Risk management and healthcare policy.

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

[14]  S. L. Griffith,et al.  The Bagby and Kuslich Method of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: History, Techniques, and 2‐Year Follow‐up Results of a United States Prospective, Multicenter Trial , 1998, Spine.

[15]  S. Oh,et al.  A Multi-center Clinical Study of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with the Expandable Stand-alone Cage (Tyche(R) Cage) for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disorders. , 2007, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[16]  S. Ohtori,et al.  Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation. , 2010, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  Huilin Yang,et al.  Cage Migration in Spondylolisthesis Treated With Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using BAK Cages , 2005, Spine.

[18]  Xiaofei Guan,et al.  Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease , 2014, International Orthopaedics.

[19]  Roberta Bonfiglioli,et al.  Low-back pain. , 2015, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[20]  G. Buttermann,et al.  Interbody device endplate engagement effects on motion segment biomechanics. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[21]  Ho Yeol Zhang,et al.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a single interbody cage and a tubular retraction system : technical tips, and perioperative, radiologic and clinical outcomes. , 2010, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[22]  J. Shikata,et al.  Risk Factors for Cage Retropulsion After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Analysis of 1070 Cases , 2012, Spine.

[23]  M. McGirt,et al.  Acute Hospital Costs After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Data From a US National Database With 6106 Patients , 2012, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[24]  B. Bucklen,et al.  Indirect decompression and vertebral body endplate strength after lateral interbody spacer impaction: cadaveric and foam-block models. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.