Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. The clinical data of 112 patients were retrospectively analyzed, and were divided into an MIS-TLIF group and OPEN-TLIF group. The operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, the content of creatine kinase(CK) and complications, were recorded. VAS score and ODI index were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Bridwell grading was used to evaluate postoperative interbody fusion. Screw position was evaluated by Rao grading. Compared with the OPEN-TLIF group, the MIS-TLIF group had longer operation times, more intraoperative fluoroscopy times, but shorter postoperative bed times (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the distribution of type A screws, but the type B screw in the MIS-TLIF group was higher (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). The postoperative quality of life score and radiological outcomes of the two types of surgery in two-level lumbar degenerative diseases was similar, and there was no significant difference in muscle injury and complications, but the operation time and intraoperative radiation exposurewere higher than in the OPEN-TLIF group, and the pedicle screws were more likely to deviate laterally out of the vertebral body. Therefore, OPEN-TLIF is recommended for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases of two segments.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). With the development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) can also achieve adequate decompression and interbody fusion. However, whether Endo-TLIF is superior to MIS-TLIF has not been adequately studied. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the treatment difference between Endo-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with Endo-TLIF vs. MIS-TLIF for the treatment of LDD. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases for studies published up to April 1, 2022. Both retrospective and prospective studies that compared between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were included. A total of 8 studies involving 581 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. Endo-TLIF significantly prolonged the operation time, but reduced the blood loss amount and length of hospital stay. Moreover, Endo-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF on relief of back pain and functional recovery in the early postoperative period. However, there were no significantly differences in long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate and incidence of complications between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Endo-TLIF was similar to MIS-TLIF in the long-term clinical outcomes, fusion and complication rates. Endo-TLIF prolongs the operation time, but shortens the length of hospital stay, and has the advantages of less surgical trauma, less blood loss, faster recovery, and early postoperative back pain relief.

Three-dimensional High-definition Exoscope in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

The operative microscope (OM) has revolutionized the field of modern spine surgery, however, it remains limited by several drawbacks. Recently, the exoscope (EX) system has been designed to assistant spine surgery. It provides a three-dimensional (3D) high-definition (HD) operative experience and becomes an alternative to the OM. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, advantages and limitations of EX-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (EMIS-TLIF) and OM-assisted MIS-TLIF (OMIS-TLIF). The clinical outcomes were assessed in 47 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) who underwent MIS-TLIF assisted with the OM or EX between January 2019 and September 2020. A total of 22 were treated with EMIS-TLIF, and 25 received OMIS-TLIF. Perioperative parameters (including sex, age, number of fusion levels and body mass index), perioperative parameters (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization stay, and duration of follow-up), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back pain, VAS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores and clinical outcomes were assessed and compared. Image quality, handling of equipment, ergonomics, 3D glasses and educational usefulness were scored according to a questionnaire. Operation time in the OMIS-TLIF group (121.92 ± 16.92 min) was significantly increased compared with that in the EMIS-TLIF group (111.00 ± 19.87 min) (P < 0.05). The VAS of the back pain and ODI scores in the EMIS-TLIF group were significantly lower compared with the OMIS-TLIF group at 1 week postoperatively (P < 0.05). The good-excellent outcomes rate was 90.91% in the EMIS-TLIF group and 88.00% in the OMIS-TLIF group, and there was no significant difference. A total of 44 visits completed the questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire showed that the EX has exhibited advantages regarding handing of equipment, ergonomics and educational usefulness, and comparable image quality as compared with the OM, however, operating surgeons complained uncomfortable sensation when wearing 3D glasses. The EMIS-TLIF was a safe and effective procedure in the management of LDD as compared with the OMIS-LIF. Meanwhile, EMIS-TLIF might resulted in a short operation time.

Adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: incidence and risk factors

Study designRetrospective study.ObjectivesTo explore the incidence and risk factors for symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD) in patients enveloped in degenerative lumbar diseases after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).MethodsData were retrospectively analyzed on 744 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases in our hospital from October 2012 to December 2018. The patients were divided into the ASD group and non-ASD (N-ASD) group on the basis of developing ASD at follow-up, and then the incidence of ASD was calculated. Clinical and radiological risk factors were assessed over time to determine their association with ASD by excluding less important factors.ResultsData were missing for 26 patients, while a total of 718 patients were successfully monitored after MIS-TLIF. Of the 718 individuals participated in the study, 34 (4.7%) patients plagued by ASD required surgical intervention. The average onset time of ASD was 62.7 ± 15.1 months. Univariate analysis results shows that age, bone mineral density (BMD), body mass index (BMI), preoperative adjacent intervertebral disc height and preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration were significantly different between the ASD and N-ASD groups (p < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis results demonstrated that BMD (p = 0.039, OR = 0.986, 95% CI 0.899–1.115), BMI (p = 0.041, OR = 1.119, 95% CI 1.103–2.397), and preoperative adjacent intervertebral disc degeneration (p = 0.023, OR = 1.215, 95% CI 1.015–1.986) may be seen as risk factors for ASD after MIS-TLIF.ConclusionsThe incidence of ASD was about 4.7% in patients suffer from degenerative lumbar diseases after MIS-TLIF. BMD, BMI and preoperative adjacent intervertebral disc degeneration might be the risk factors for the occurrence of ASD after MIS-TLIF. Our research also suggested that patients with lower BMD, higher BMI and disc preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration were more likely to develop ASD after MIS-TLIF.

MIS-TLIF or CLIF for single segmental lumbar degenerative disease.

We aimed to compare the effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and Crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF) on single segmental lumbar degenerative disease. Patients with single segmental lumbar degenerative disease undergoing MIS-TLIF (n = 28) and CLIF (n = 28) were enrolled from April to October 2017. Preoperative medical history, anthropometric data, and clinical data were recorded. Visual analogue scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Radiography was performed before and after surgery. X-ray films were evaluated according to the Bridwell method, visual analogue scores and ODI scores were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the gender, age, clinical diagnosis, involved segment or preoperative ODI score between 2 groups (P > .05). During 12-month follow-up, MIS-TLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss, drainage, postoperative bedridden time, and hospital stay (P < .05), but more operation time and radiation exposure time compared with CLIF group (P < .05). CLIF group reported less pain than MIS-TLIF group (P > .05). Both groups had similar lumbar fusion rate (P > .05). Overall, CLIF has less complications, less trauma and faster recovery for the treatment of single segmental lumbar degenerate disease when compared with MIS-TLIF. Evaluation of more patients and long-term follow-up are still needed to further validate our findings.

A Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes between Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective: To compare the clinical, radiological and functional outcomes of patients between open TLIF and minimally invasive TLIF techniques. Study Design: Prospective cohort study Place and duration: Study was conducted at department of neurosurgery Bakhtawar Amin Hospital, Multan from August 2021 to July 2022 in duration of one year. Methodology: A total of 94 patients planned for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) were enrolled in study. Main variables of study were intra operative blood loss, duration of surgery, VAS score, ODI index and functional score. SPSS version 24 was used for data analysis, t-test and chi square test were applied to see association among variables. P value less than or equal 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: Oswestry disability index readings were 35.16±2.18 and 5.12±0.61 in O-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups respectively at 3 weeks after surgery. The differences were statistically insignificant, (p&gt;0.050). Physical component summary of both the groups at different time intervals as shown better outcomes in MIS-TLIF group, no difference was found to be statistically significant except at 6 week. Mental component summary in both the groups was almost equal, (p&gt;0.050). Implications: There was no local study on comparison of open and minimally invasive technique for TLIF, our study will fulfill the local reference gap and help the surgeons for choice of better management technique in future. Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery TLIF technique is better in immediate benefits as soft tissue injury and iatrogenic injury which is associated with better post operative pain functional recovery time. So, minimal invasive interbody fusion is a safe and reliable option for short term (blood loss, post operative pain) and long term outcomes like functional recovery. Keywords: Interbody fusion, VAS score, SF-36, ODI index, TLIF Technique

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS): Early Experience with Initial Consecutive Cases at a Spine Naïve Community Hospital

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine a spine naïve community hospital’s ability to perform MITLIF safely and with speedy discharge via implementation of a minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) program utilizing ERAS. Methods: Single community hospital retrospective cohort analysis for initial consecutive MITLIF cases with unilateral pedicle screws performed by a single surgeon from October 2019 to March 2021. Minimum postoperative follow-up was one year. Narcotic use was assessed per the state prescription drug monitoring program. Surgery protocol included single paraspinal incision, non-expandable 18/22 mm tube, operating microscope, fluoroscopic guidance, EMG with SSEP monitoring and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol. Results: 52 patients were included. Average OR time, and fluoroscopy time were 143±115 minutes, and 1.00±0.47 minutes, respectively. Patients were prescribed an average of 38±33 post-operative opioid doses for an average of 8±7 days. All patients on preoperative, chronic narcotics had no prescription changes, pre-op versus post-op, despite clinical improvement. Complications included one irrigation a(1.9%) nd debridement with retention of hardware for surgical site infection, and one revision(1.9%) for displaced hardware. Discharge data included 47 (90.4%), four (7.7%), and one patients (1.9%) discharged on POD1, POD2, and beyond POD2, respectively.Conclusion: MITLIF can be safely and successfully performed at a spine naïve community hospital with excellent intraoperative metrics, a low complication rate, and speedy discharge. MITLIF performed well in multiple perioperative and postoperative variables compared to MISS techniques. Considerations for implementation of MITLIF in the community setting include special equipment, personnel training, surgeon experience, ERAS protocols and diligent patient/indication selection.

OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PurposeTo compare the effectiveness and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease.MethodsWe searched relevant studies in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases comprehensively from inception to March 2022. The data were extracted from included studies, including operation indications, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes. Random or fixed-effects models were used in all meta-analyses according to the between-study heterogeneity.ResultsIn total, 30 studies, including 2,125 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our study found similar disk height, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index(ODI) between the two groups. However, the OLIF showed an advantage in restoring lumbar lordotic angle compared with MI-TLIF, with the pooled mean change of 17.73° and 2.61°, respectively. Additionally, the operative time and blood loss in the OLIF group appeared to be less compared with the MI-TLIF group. Regarding complications, the rates of the two groups were similar (OLIF 14.0% vs. MI-TLIF 10.0%), but the major complications that occurred in these two procedures differed significantly.ConclusionThe results of disk height, length of hospital stay, VAS, and ODI between the OLIF and MI-TLIF groups were similar. And the OLIF was superior in restoring lumbar lordotic angle, operative time, and blood loss. However, the OLIF group's complication rate was higher, although not significantly, than that in the MI-TLIF group.

A Comparison of Polyetheretherketone and Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial

To compare patient-reported outcomes and radiographic outcomes between using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium-coated PEEK (TiPEEK) as an interbody cage in patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Eighty-Six patients who underwent 1-2 levels of MIS-TLIF were randomly allocated to receive a TiPEEK or PEEK cage. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded using visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQoL-5D-5L. Postoperative radiographs and computed tomography were assessed for spinal fusion and cage subsidence. The eligible 82 patients (41 patients, 49 operated levels in TiPEEK group and 41 patients, 50 operated levels in PEEK group) were included in the final analysis. Over total follow-up, the mean difference in visual analog scale back and leg pain scores between TiPEEK versusPEEK group was-0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI],-0.5 to 0.4; P= 0.85) and-0.12 (95% CI,-0.6 to 0.3; P= 0.62), respectively. The mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index scores was-0.71 (95% CI,-3.8 to 2.4; P= 0.65), and the mean difference in EQ-5D-5L was 0.03 (95% CI,-0.01 to 0.06; P= 0.11) in TiPEEK group versus PEEK group as a reference. TiPEEK showed significantly higher fusion rates than PEEK at 6-month (91.8% vs. 76%; P= 0.03), but no difference at 12-month postoperation. There was no significant difference in cage subsidence rates between the 2 groups. The patient-reported outcomes showed significant improvements at 6- and 12-month postoperation following MIS-TLIF; the differences in those with TiPEEK versus PEEK cages were minimal with tight CIs. Fusion rates in both groups were ≥90%, with TiPEEK cages showing higher fusion rates at 6months after the procedure.

Learning curve for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is commonly used to treat degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. It facilitates a full-scale spinal decompression and interbody fusion with minimal neural retraction using the tubular retractor system. Despite the benefits of surgical efficiency and minimalism, this technique requires a long learning curve. There is currently no consensus on the learning curve characteristics and proper training methods for MI-TLIF. Thus, this systematic review aimed to discuss the cutoff point at which technical proficiency is achieved and ways to enhance the learning process. Major databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, were searched for learning curve studies that have evaluated the clinical outcome and learning progress of MI-TLIF using quantitative data. The qualities of the selected studies were assessed using the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale. The plateau points in the "learning curve" were analyzed according to various outcome measures. Nine full-text articles, representing 753 cases, were included from 9743 screened studies. The most commonly used outcome measures were the operative time, followed by the complication rate. The mean cutoff point for the operative time was 31.33 ± 11.98 (range 13‒45) cases. The plateau point in the learning curve for MI-TLIF may differ according to the outcome measures used. Most studies have demonstrated the learning progress based on simple task efficiency, rather than patient outcomes. Moreover, the learning rate may be affected by the patients' and technical conditions. Therefore, great care is required in interpreting the learning curve and cutoff point for MI-TLIF proficiency.

Augmented Reality to Improve Surgical Workflow in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion - A Feasibility Study With Case Series.

ObjectiveMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a highly reproducible procedure for the fusion of spinal segments. We recently introduced the concept of “total navigation” to improve workflow and eliminate fluoroscopy. Image-guided surgery incorporating augmented reality (AR) may further facilitate workflow. In this study, we developed and evaluated a protocol to integrate AR into the workflow of MIS-TLIF. MethodsA case series of 10 patients was the basis for the evaluation of a protocol to facilitate tubular MIS-TLIF by the application of AR. Surgical TLIF landmarks were marked on a preoperative computed tomography (CT)-scan using dedicated software. This marked CT scan was fused intraoperatively with the low-dose navigation CT scan using elastic image fusion, and the markers were transferred to the intraoperative scan. Our experience with this workflow and the surgical outcomes were collected. ResultsOur AR protocol was safely implemented in all cases. The TLIF landmarks could be preoperatively planned and transferred to the intraoperative imaging. Of the 10 cases, 1 case had additionally a synovial cyst resection and in 2 cases an additional bony decompression was performed due to central stenosis. The average procedure time was 160.6±31.9 minutes. The AR implementation added 1.72±0.37 minutes to the overall procedure time. No complications occurred. ConclusionOur findings support the idea that total navigation with AR may further facilitate the workflow, especially in cases with more complex anatomy and for teaching and training purposes. More work is needed to simplify the software and make AR integration more user-friendly.

Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

ObjectiveThree-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium implants have been developed recently, but the utility is not yet proven. The aim of this study was to compare 3D-printed titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). MethodsBetween October 2018 and September 2021, we retrospectively analyzed 83 patients who underwent single-level MIS-TLIF (3D-printed titanium, 40; PEEK, 43). Radiologic parameters were assessed with x-ray and computed tomography (CT) at postoperative 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year. Clinical status was evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale score, and Bridwell fusion grading was assessed on 6-month and 1-year postoperative CT. ResultsThere were no differences between the 2 groups in demographics and clinical outcomes. At 1-year of follow-up, the reported 3D-printed titanium fusion grades were grade I: 77.5% (31 patients), grade II: 17.5% (7 patients), and grade III: 5% (2 patients). The PEEK fusion grades were grade I: 51.2% (22 patients), grade II: 41.9% (18 patients), and grade III: 7.0% (3 patients). For overall fusion rate (grade I + II), there was no difference between the 2 cages (95.0% vs. 93.0%, p=0.705), but grade I was reported at a higher incidence in 3D-printed titanium than PEEK (77.5% vs. 51.2%, p=0.013). There was no difference between cages based on subsidence and complications. ConclusionThere were no significant differences in the overall fusion rate for MIS-TLIF surgery between 3D-printed titanium and PEEK, but the fusion grade was better in 3D-printed titanium than in PEEK. Long-term follow-up is required to verify the effectiveness.

History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a popular surgical technique for lumbar arthrodesis, widely considered to hold great efficacy while conferring an impressive safety profile through the minimization of soft tissue damage. This elegant approach to lumbar stabilization is the byproduct of several innovations throughout the past century. In 1934, Mixter and Barr’s paper in the New England Journal of Medicine elucidated the role of disc herniation in spinal instability and radiculopathy, prompting surgeons to explore new approaches and instruments to access the disc space. In 1944, Briggs and Milligan published their novel technique, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), involving continuous removal of vertebral bone chips and replacement of the disc with a round bone peg. The following decades witnessed several PLIF modifications, including the addition of long pedicle screws. In 1982, Harms and Rolinger sought to redefine the posterior corridor by approaching the disc space through the intervertebral foramen, establishing the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In the 1990s, lumbar spine surgery experienced a paradigm shift, with surgeons placing increased emphasis on tissue-sparing minimally invasive techniques. Spurred by this revolution, Foley and Lefkowitz published the novel MIS-TLIF technique in 2002. The MIS-TLIF has demonstrated comparable surgical outcomes to the TLIF, with an improved safety profile. Here, we present a view into the history of the posterior-approach treatment of the discogenic radiculopathy, culminating in the MIS-TLIF. Additionally, we evaluate the hallmark characteristics, technical variability, and reported outcomes of the modern MIS-TLIF and take a brief look at technologies that may define the future MIS-TLIF.

ODI

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. To determine the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) cutoff for achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at one year following minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. An absolute score denoting PASS, rather than a change score denoting minimal clinically important difference (MCID), might be a better metric to assess clinical outcomes. Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The outcome measure was ODI. The anchor question was the Global Rating Change: "Compared with preoperative, you feel (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) same, (4) slightly worse, or (5) much worse." For analysis, it was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable (acceptable=response of 1 or 2, unacceptable=response of 3, 4, or 5). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and the ODI cutoff using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were assessed for the overall cohort as well as subgroups based on age, sex, type of surgery, and preoperative ODI. Differences between the PASS and MCID metrics were analyzed. A total of 137 patients were included. In all, 87% of patients achieved PASS. Patients less than or equal to 65 years and those undergoing fusion were more likely to achieve PASS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed an ODI cutoff of 25.2 to achieve PASS (area under the curve: 0.872, sensitivity: 82%, specificity: 83%). The subgroup analyses based on age, sex, and preoperative ODI revealed area under the curve >0.8 and ODI threshold values consistent between 25.2 and 25.5 (except 28.4 in patients with preoperative ODI >40). PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity compared with MCID (82% vs. 69%, P =0.01). Patients with ODI <25 are expected to achieve PASS, irrespective of age, sex, and preoperative disability. PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity than MCID. 3.

Single-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.

Limited studies have compared minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. This study aims to compare perioperative variables, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates between these surgical approaches. Patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis undergoing primary, single-level MIS TLIF or ALIF were identified in a surgical database. Patients were divided into MIS TLIF and ALIF cohorts. Demographics and perioperative characteristics were collected and compared between groups using the chi square test or Student t-test. PROMs including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score, visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index were collected at preoperative, 6-, 12-week, 6-month, 1-, and 2-year time points. Mean PROMs were compared using the Student t-test for independent samples. MCID attainment was determined using established values in the literature; achievement rates by grouping were compared using chi square analysis. One hundred seventy-one patients were included, 121 MIS TLIF and 50 ALIF. No demographic differences were observed. Mean surgical times were 139.7 minutes (MIS TLIF) and 165.5 minutes (ALIF) (P < 0.001). No other perioperative differences were observed. Mean estimated blood loss values were 63.8 mL (MIS TLIF) and 73.7 mL (ALIF). Mean postoperative lengths of stay were 43.9 hours (MIS TLIF) and 42.5 hours (ALIF). Mean PROMs did not markedly differ among groups at any time point. MCID attainment was markedly higher among MIS TLIF patients for the Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks (P = 0.046) and 12 weeks (P = 0.007), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function at 12 weeks (P = 0.015), and VAS leg at 6 weeks (P = 0.031) and 12 weeks (P = 0.045). No other notable differences were observed among MCID achievement by grouping. While single-level ALIF demonstrated markedly higher surgical times, other perioperative characteristics and PROMs were comparable among ALIF and MIS TLIF patients. Although MCID achievement rates were generally lower for disability and leg pain among ALIF patients, significance was not reached at 6 months, 1 year, or during the overall postoperative period after fusion.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study

We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF). We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2years postoperatively. Our study included 64 patients, with 32 patients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluoroscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant. Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

We aim to compare perioperative/postoperative clinical outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in patients presenting for revision surgery. A retrospective database was reviewed for procedures between November 2005 and December 2021. Revision MIS-TLIF/ALIFs were included, whereas primary fusions or diagnosis of infection/malignancy/trauma were excluded. Patients were grouped into MIS-TLIF/ALIF cohorts. Preoperatively/postoperatively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Short-Form 12-Item Survey Mental/Physical Composite Scores. A total of 164 patients were eligible, with 84 patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort. The presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and central stenosis, narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0/1, and postoperative urinary retention rates was greater in the MIS-TLIF cohort (P ≤ 0.036, all). Preoperative PROMs between cohorts did not significantly differ. Significantly favorable postoperative PROM scores were shown in the MIS-TLIF cohort with PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.033, all). Most patients in both cohorts achieved overall minimum clinically important difference for visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12-Item Survey Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF. No differences were noted between cohorts within rates of MCID achievement. Patients undergoing revision fusion via MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1-year postoperative mean outcomes and rates of meaningful clinical achievement for physical function, mental health, disability, and back/leg pain. However, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF reported improved physical function at 12 weeks and 6 months. Perioperatively, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF were noted to consume significantly greater quantities of narcotics.

The Effect of the Severity of Preoperative Leg Pain on Patient-Reported Outcomes, Minimum Clinically Important Difference Achievement, and Patient Satisfaction After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), satisfaction, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in patients stratified by preoperative leg pain. Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF were collected through retrospective review of a prospectively maintained single-surgeon database. PROMs administered preoperatively/postoperatively included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) Physical/Mental Component Score (PCS/MCS). Patients were grouped based on preoperative VAS leg scores: VAS leg ≤7 or VAS leg >7. Inferential statistics were used to compare PROMs, MCID achievement rates, and postoperative satisfaction between groups. A total of 562 patients were eligible (168 VAS leg score ≤7; 394 VAS leg score >7). Significant differences between cohorts in postoperative mean PROMs were noted for PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks/2 years, SF-12 PCS at 6 weeks/2 years, SF-12 MCS at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/1 year, VAS back score at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months, VAS leg score at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years and ODI at all postoperative time points (P < 0.045, all). In the VAS leg score >7 cohort, a greater proportion achieving MCID for VAS leg score at all postoperative time points and ODI at 12 weeks (P < 0.010, all). Postoperative satisfaction was greater in VAS back score ≤7 cohort for VAS leg score at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years, VAS back score at 12 weeks/2 years, and ODI at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years (P < 0.046, all). Patients with severe preoperative leg pain showed worse postoperative PROM scores and patient satisfaction for disability and back/leg pain. MCID achievement rates across cohorts were similar. Patients with severe leg pain may have expectations for surgical benefits incongruent with their postoperative outcomes, and physicians may seek to manage the preoperative expectations of their patients to reflect likely outcomes after MIS-TLIF.

Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segment lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis.

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) have been commonly demonstrated as two effective choices for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of PELD and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of single-segment LDH. Randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies published from the time when databases were built to January 2022 that compared the effects of PELD and MIS-TLIF for single-segment LDH were retrieved from a comprehensive search in six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase databases, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and CNKI). All analyses were performed with RevMan 5.4 software. A total of 9 studies with 1274 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the PELD group was associated with lower visual analog scales (VAS) score for back pain at the final follow-up (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: [0.32, 2.14], p=0.008), higher Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score (MD: 2.29; 95% CI: [1.38, 3.19], p<0.00001), lower Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (MD: -2.46; 95% CI: [-4.50, -0.43], p=0.02), shorter operation time at 3 months (MD: -51.77; 95% CI: [-74.63, -28.91], p<0.00001) and lesser hospital stay (MD: -5.18; 95% CI: [-6.65, -3.71], p<0.00001), and less blood loss (MD: -187.13; 95% CI: [-281.45, -92.81], p=0.0001). However, it was associated with a higher rate of recurrent disc herniation (RR: 17.66; 95% CI: [4.25,73.44], p<0.0001). There were no significant differences between PELD and MIS-TLIF in VAS leg pain (MD: 0.12; 95% CI: [-0.24, 0.49], p=0.51), and complication rate (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: [0.45, 1.12], p=0.14). The existing evidence showed that PELD had significantly better outcomes than MIS-TLIF in JOA score at six months, operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay as a procedure for LDH, but it had a higher recurrence rate than MIS-TLIF. Meanwhile, we should have a good command of the pros and cons of the two surgical methods to formulate an appropriate surgical plan for the patients.

Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF: a propensity score-matched cohort.

Local and regional radiographic outcomes following minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus open TLIF remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of local and regional radiographic parameters following MI-TLIF and open TLIF. The authors hypothesized that open TLIF provides greater segmental and global lordosis correction than MI-TLIF. A single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing MI- or open TLIF for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis was performed. One-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match patients who underwent open TLIF to those who underwent MI-TLIF. Sagittal segmental radiographic measures included segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), foraminal height (FH), percent spondylolisthesis, and cage position. Lumbopelvic radiographic parameters included overall lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Change in segmental or overall lordosis after surgery was considered "lordosing" if the change was > 0° and "kyphosing" if it was ≤ 0°. Student t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare outcomes between MI-TLIF and open-TLIF groups. A total of 267 patients were included in the study, 114 (43%) who underwent MI-TLIF and 153 (57%) who underwent open TLIF, with an average follow-up of 56.6 weeks (SD 23.5 weeks). After PSM, there were 75 patients in each group. At the latest follow-up both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in assessment scores obtained with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the numeric rating scale for low-back pain (NRS-BP), without significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in SL, ADH, and percent corrected spondylolisthesis compared to baseline (p < 0.001). However, the MI-TLIF group experienced significantly larger magnitudes of correction with respect to these metrics (ΔSL 4.14° ± 4.35° vs 1.15° ± 3.88°, p < 0.001; ΔADH 4.25 ± 3.68 vs 1.41 ± 3.77 mm, p < 0.001; percent corrected spondylolisthesis: -10.82% ± 6.47% vs -5.87% ± 8.32%, p < 0.001). In the MI-TLIF group, LL improved in 44% (0.3° ± 8.5°) of the cases, compared to 48% (0.9° ± 6.4°) of the cases in the open-TLIF group (p > 0.05). Stratification by operative technique (unilateral vs bilateral facetectomy) and by interbody device (static vs expandable) did not yield statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and local radiographic parameters, with neutral effects on regional alignment. Surprisingly, in our cohort, change in SL was significantly greater in MI-TLIF patients, perhaps reflecting the effect of operative techniques, technological innovations, and the preservation of the posterior tension band. Taking these results together, no significant overall differences in LL between groups were demonstrated, which suggests that MI-TLIF is comparable to open approaches in providing radiographic correction after surgery. These findings suggest that alignment targets can be achieved by either MI- or open-TLIF approaches, highlighting the importance of surgeon attention to these variables.