Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Group Research Articles

Comparing OLIF Combined with Lateral Screw Fixation Versus Minimally Invasive TLIF for Treating Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

The present study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with lateral screw fixation and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) for the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Data regarding clinical and radiological outcomes for single-level DLS treated using OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation or Mis-TLIF between November 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Seventy-five patients with single-level DLS (≥ 2 years' follow-up) were included and divided into 2 groups according to surgical method: OLIF (n=33); and Mis-TLIF (n=42). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the OLIF group than that in the Mis-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in preoperative low back pain (LBP), leg pain (LP) visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups, although the OLIF group had significantly lower LBP VAS scores at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Additionally, the LP VAS score was significantly lower in the Mis-TLIF group than that in the OLIF group at 1 month postoperatively, and the ODI of the OLIF group at 3 months postoperatively was significantly lower than that of the Mis-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis angles between the two groups, whereas the postoperative surgical segmental lordosis angle and disc height (1, 6, 12, and 24 months) in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (OLIF, 18.2% versus Mis-TLIF, 11.9%; p=0.520). Conclusion OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation yielded better clinical and radiological outcomes than Mis-TLIF in patients with single-level DLS.

Comparison of the Medium-term Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Discectomy and Fusion with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) with huge herniation in the left lateral recess or central canal present challenges for oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) or endoscope-assisted OLIF procedures. Currently, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is the primary approach for this issue. This study aims to provide a standardized technical description of the anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion (ALDF) and evaluate the medium-term clinical effectiveness of both ALDF and MIS-TLIF techniques. A retrospective review was performed on LDDs who underwent ALDF and MIS-TLIF surgery from January 2018 to January 2020. The evaluation encompassed various clinical outcomes, such as the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain (VAS-back, VAS-leg), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the 36-item short-form health survey mental component summary (SF-36 MCS), and the physical component summary (SF-36 PCS). Additionally, radiological parameters, including disc height (DH), segmental disk angle (SDA), lumbar lordosis (LL), and cross-sectional area (CSA), were assessed. Data including radiculopathy, estimated blood loss, operation time, time of getting out of bed, fusion rate, and complications were recorded. Student's independent samples t test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the differences between groups. In total, 47 patients were treated by ALDF and 48 patients were treated by MIS-TLIF. The ALDF group exhibited statistically significant lower estimated blood loss and earlier time of getting out of bed compared to the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). The ALDF group demonstrated lower VAS-back scores and a higher remission rate of low back pain 3 years after the surgery (p < 0.05). During the entire follow-up period, the ALDF group exhibited higher increases in DH and SDA compared to the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). At 6 months, the fusion rate in the ALDF group was significantly higher than in the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). The comparison revealed no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the two groups (p > 0.05). The ALDF could be considered as a viable surgical alternative for the treatment of LDDs that necessitate ventral neural direct decompression. ALDF exhibited favorable medium-term outcomes in patients with LDDs, displaying advantages in facilitating expedited recovery, enhancing radiographic outcomes, and elevating the remission rate of low back pain. Although ALDF presents slightly higher complication rates compared to MIS-TLIF, it does not adversely affect clinical outcomes.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivePresently, no study has compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUA) and Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of through Mis-TLIF combined with BDUA and Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for the treatment of DLD, and reported the learning curve of the procedure of MIS-TLIF with BDUA.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the prospectively collected data of consecutive DLD patients in the two groups from January 2016 to January 2020.ResultsThe operative time (OT) was significantly longer in the Mis-TLIF group (n = 113) than in the Open-TLIF group (n = 135). The postoperative drainage volume (PDV) and length of stay (LOS) were significantly higher in the Open-TLIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, the complication rate was significantly higher in the Open-TLIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group (14.8% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.030), while there was no significant difference in the reoperation and adjacent segment disease rates between the two groups. There were no significant differences in back pain and leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups preoperatively, at discharge, and 2 years postoperatively. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in NRS scores and ODI scores after surgery. OT was negatively correlated with the number of surgeries performed (P < 0.001, r = −0.43). The learning curve of Mis-TLIF with BDUA was steep, with OT tapered to steady state in 43 cases.ConclusionCompared with Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression, Mis-TLIF with BDUA can achieve equivalent clinical outcomes, lower PDV and LOS, and lower complication rates. Although this procedure took longer, it could be a viable alternative for the treatment of DLD after a steep learning curve.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). MethodsThis retrospective study included 110 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disease who underwent Endo-TLIF or MIS-TLIF between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients were divided into Endo-TLIF (n = 55) and MIS-TLIF groups (n = 55). Perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes were assessed. ResultsThe Endo-TLIF group had significantly lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. However, the operation time was significantly longer and there was more X-ray exposure than in the MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in complications between the groups. The Endo-TLIF group showed significantly lower creatine kinase (CK) levels than the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively (p<0.05), but not at 7 days postoperatively (p>0.05). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were significantly reduced in both groups at different time points post-operation compared to pre-operation. The VAS score in the Endo-TLIF group was lower than that in the MIS-TLIF group at 3 days postoperatively. Moreover, no significant differences were found in fusion rates, lumbar lordosis (LL), and lumbar segmental lordosis (SL) between the two groups (p>0.05). ConclusionsEndo-TLIF might be considered as an effective and reliable treatment option for single-level lumbar degeneration. It results in less trauma and faster postoperative recovery, but a longer operative time and more X-ray exposure than MIS-TLIF. Endo-TLIF has effects on clinical and radiological outcomes that are comparable to those of MIS-TLIF.

Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of II° lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis: A retrospective cohort study.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is not suitable for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, whether MIS-TLIF can treat II° lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) is still controversial. This retrospective cohort study compared the clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of II° lumbar IS. From January 2017 to January 2023, 101 patients with II° lumbar IS were diagnosed in our hospital and underwent surgical treatment, of which 53 received MIS-TLIF surgery and 48 received OPEN-TLIF surgery. The operation time, blood loss and surgical complications were compared between the 2 groups. The pain, function, reduction rate and fusion rate of the patients were evaluated during follow-up. The amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and postoperative hospital stay in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the OPEN-TLIF group were (P < .01). In the MIS-TLIF group, there were 1 case of dural sac injury and 3 cases of lower limb paralysis. The complication rate of MIS-TLIF was lower than the OPEN-TLIF group (P = .032). In the visual analog scale score of low back pain, the MIS-TLIF group was lower than the OPEN-TLIF group after operation and at the last follow-up. There were no significant differences in postoperative leg pain score, slippage rate, and fusion rate between the 2 groups. Compared with OPEN-TLIF, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of better low back pain relief, less trauma, less bleeding and faster recovery, and is worthy of clinical promotion.

Comparison between OLIF and MISTLIF in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an age-, sex-, and segment-matched cohort study

To compare outcomes after oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for treating mild to moderate symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single-level (L4/5) OLIF with an age-, sex-, and segment-matched MISTLIF with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach cohort. Perioperative data were collected for the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage in the first postoperative day, postoperative hospital stay, cost, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and complications. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in posterior intervertebral space height (PISH), intervertebral space foramen height (IFH), intervertebral foramen area (IFA), and area of the spinal canal (ASC). Clinical and psychological outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). 35 OLIF patients were compared with 35 MISTLIF patients in L4/5 DLSS. The OLIF group had shorter bedtime, postoperative hospital stays, less intraoperative and postoperative blood loss (all P < 0.05), but had more times of intraoperative fluoroscopy, longer operative time, and higher cost (all P < 0.05). The complication rates were equivalent (OLIF vs MISTLIF: 22.86% vs 17.14%). PISH (11.94 ± 1.78 mm vs 9.42 ± 1.94 mm, P < 0.05), IFH (23.87 ± 3.05 mm vs 21.41 ± 2.95 mm, P < 0.05), and IFA (212.14 ± 51.82 mm2 vs 177.07 ± 51.73 mm2, P < 0.05) after surgery were significantly increased in the OLIF group. The ASC was increased significantly after the operation in both groups, but the ASC in the MISTLIF group was increased significantly more than that in the OLIF group (450.04 ± 66.66 mm2 vs 171.41 ± 58.55 mm2, P < 0.05). The lumbar VAS scores at 1 month (1.89 ± 0.87 vs 2.34 ± 0.84, P = 0.028) and 6 months (1.23 ± 0.97 vs 1.80 ± 0.99, P = 0.018) after operation in the OLIF group were significantly lower. There were no significant differences in lower extremity VAS and ODI scores between the two groups. Compared with MISTLIF group, HADS scores on postoperative day 3 (2.91 ± 1.46 vs 4.89 ± 1.78, P < 0.05) and prior to hospital discharge (PTD) (2.54 ± 1.38 vs 3.80 ± 1.78, P = 0.002) in the OLIF group were decreased significantly. OLIF showed more advantages of less surgical invasion, lower incidence of postoperative low back pain, faster postoperative recovery, and less anxiety compared with MISTLIF. Regardless of cost, OLIF seems to be a better option to treat mild to moderate symptomatic DLSS.

Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.

The study describes the benefits of MIS-TLIF (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and compares them with OTLIF (open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). It compares blood loss, length of hospitalization stays (LOS), operation time, and return of the patient to the environment. A total of 250 adults (109 males and 141 females), mean age 59.5 ± 12.6, who underwent MIS-TLIF in the Neurosurgery Clinic (NSC) Ruzomberok, Slovakia, because of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), participated in this retrospective study. Data were obtained from the patients' medical records and from the standardized Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) index questionnaire. To compare ODI in our study sample, we used the Student's Paired Sample Test. To compare the MIS-TLIF and OTLIF approaches, a meta-analysis was conducted. Confidence intervals were 95% CI. The test of homogeneity (Chi-square (Q)) and the degree of heterogeneity (I2 test) among the included studies were used. Statistical analyses were two-sided (α = 0.05). All monitored parameters were significantly better in MIS-TLIF group: blood loss (p < 0.001), operation time (p < 0.001), and ODI changes (p < 0.001). LOS (p < 0.042) were close to the significance level. ODI in the study sample decreased by 33.44% points after MIS-TLIF, and it significantly increased as well (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who were satisfied with the surgery they underwent was 84.8%. The study confirmed that the MIS-TLIF method is in general gentler for the patient and allows the faster regeneration of patient's health status compared to OTLIF.

Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF

PurposeThis study aims to compare midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of patients with severe stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), focusing on dural tears rates, other complications, clinical and radiological outcomes.MethodsThis cohort study included patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (Shizas C or D) and lumbar DS who underwent MIDLIF or MIS-TLIF. Propensity score matching was done and the groups were compared regarding surgery time, length of stay, perioperative complications, clinical results and radiological outcomes, at 1 year of follow-up.ResultsThe study included initially 80 patients, and 72 patients after matching, 36 in each group. Six patients had dural tears, four in the MIDLIF group and two in the MIS-TLIF group (p = 0.67). General complication rates and reoperations were not significantly different between the groups. Good or excellent clinical was achieved in 75% of the MIDLIF patients and 72% of the MIS-TLIF patients (p = 0.91). Radiological parameters showed small but statistically significant (p < 0.01) improvements after surgery, particularly in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis (2.0° and 1.7°), while pelvic tilt and global tilt decreased (1.6° and 2.6°). These findings were similar for both groups.ConclusionOur study confirms that MIDLIF is a safe and reliable minimally invasive alternative for lumbar interbody fusion in DS, even in patients with severe stenosis and previous spine surgery. It seems to offer similar results to MIS-TLIF regarding clinical results, radiological outcomes and complications.

"Early Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimal Invasive in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases".

This was a retrospective cohort study. To compare the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Along with the continuous development of endoscopic technology, the early safety and effectiveness of ULIF technology are still unknown. This retrospective study included 61 patients who underwent fusion surgery through ULIF or MIS-TLIF in 2021. Twenty-nine patients underwent ULIF (group A), and 32 underwent MIS-TLIF (group B). Fusion rate, bone graft volume, hidden blood loss (HBL), C-reactive protein level, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index , Visual Analog Scale score, and MacNab criteria were assessed in both groups. The Visual Analog Scale score for back pain in the early postoperative period was significantly lower in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). All other clinical scores showed improvement, with no significant difference between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative C-reactive protein levels and fusion rates between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, HBL was higher and operative time was longer in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). Most importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between groups A and B in fusion rate, length of stay and bone graft volume ( P >0.05). No serious surgical complications occurred in our study. ULIF is a new option for lumbar fusion. Despite the drawbacks of longer operation time and higher HBL, ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances.

Single-Level Endoscopic TLIF Has Decreased Surgery Duration, Blood Loss, and Length of Hospital Stay While Achieving Similar 1-Year Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive TLIF.

This study presents a single surgeon's experience comparing 1-year outcomes of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (E-TLIF) vs minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in an Asian population. Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent single-level E-TLIF or MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon in a tertiary spine institution from 2018 to 2021 with 1-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria for both procedures were degenerative disc disease with grade I or II spondylolisthesis and mild to moderate central canal stenosis. Clinical outcomes assessed included surgery duration, blood loss, and length of stay. Patient-reported outcomes assessed included the visual analog score for back pain and lower limb pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Neurogenic Symptom Score. Radiographic parameters assessed included segmental lordosis, posterior disc height, listhesis, and the presence of cage migration or subsidence. Twelve E-TLIF and 34 MIS-TLIF patients were identified. E-TLIF had shorter surgery duration (165 ± 15 vs 259 ± 43 min for E-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups, respectively; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (83 ± 75 vs 181 ± 225 mL; P = 0.033), and decreased length of stay (1.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.7 ± 2.9 days; P < 0.001) compared with MIS-TLIF. E-TLIF and MIS-TLIF patients had significant improvements (P < 0.05) at 1 year in all patient-reported outcomes scores and radiographic parameters assessed. Both E-TLIF and MIS-TLIF patient groups also had similar postoperative patient-reported outcomes scores and radiographic parameters. No complications were recorded for E-TLIF, while MIS-TLIF had a case of dura tear and another case of meralgia paresthetica. There were no instances of cage subsidence, cage migration, or implant loosening in either group at 1 year. Although the study size was limited because E-TLIF is a relatively new technique in our institution, 1-year results demonstrate that E-TLIF can be a safe and efficacious option that achieves clinical and radiological results similar to MIS-TLIF with the additional benefits of decreased surgical duration, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. The results of this study support the effectiveness and potential advantages of endoscopic TLIF compared with MIS-TLIF.

Clinical and radiologic comparison between oblique lateral interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

To compare the short-term clinical efficacy and radiologic differences between oblique lateral interbody fusion(OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A retrospective analysis was performed on 58 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with OLIF or MIS-TLIF from April 2019 to October 2020. Among them, 28 patients were treated with OLIF (OLIF group), including 15 males and 13 females aged 47 to 84 years old with an average age of (63.00±9.38) years. The other 30 patients were treated with MIS-TLIF(MIS-TLIF group), including 17 males and 13 females aged 43 to 78 years old with an average age of (61.13±11.10) years. General conditions, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, complications, lying in bed, and hospitalization time were recorded in both groups. Radiological characteristics, including intervertebral disc height (DH), intervertebral foramen height (FH), and lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), were compared between two groups. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical effect. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, lying in bed, and hospitalization time in OLIF group were significantly less than those in the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). The intervertebral disc height and intervertebral foramen height were significantly improved in both groups after the operation (P<0.05). The lumbar lordosis angle in OLIF group was significantly improved compared to before the operation(P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the MIS-TLIF group before and after operation(P>0.05). Postoperative intervertebral disc height, intervertebral foramen height, and lumbar lordosis were better in the OLIF group than in the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). The VAS and ODI of the OLIF group were lower than those of the MIS-TLIF group within 1 week and 1 month after the operation (P<0.05), and there were no significant differences in VAS and ODI at 3 and 6 months after the operation between the two groups(P>0.05). In the OLIF group, 1 case had paresthesia of the left lower extremity with flexion-hip weakness and 1 case had a collapse of the endplate after the operation;in the MIS-TLIF group, 2 cases had radiation pain of lower extremities after decompression. Compared with MIS-TLIF, OLIF results in less operative trauma, faster recovery, and better imaging performance after lumbar spine surgery.

Comparison of surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundCurrently, hidden blood loss (HBL) has been paid more and more attention by spine surgeons. Simultaneously, it has been the effort of spine surgeons to explore more advantages of minimally invasive surgery. More and more articles have compared unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). But so far, there is no HBL comparison between BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF. This study aims to compare the surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome of BE-LIF and MIS-TLIF and to provide insight regarding minimally invasive surgery for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).MethodsWe enrolled 103 eligible patients with LDD who underwent BE-LIF (n = 46) and MIS-TLIF (n = 57) during August 2020–March 2021. We collected data, including demographics, perioperative haematocrit, operative and postoperative hospital times, serum creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and hospitalization costs. Total and hidden blood loss was calculated. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, fusion rate, and complications.ResultsBasic demographics and surgical data were comparable. The CRP and CK levels were generally lower in the BE-LIF than in the MIS-TLIF group, especially CRP levels on postoperative day (POD) three and CK levels on POD one. True total blood loss, postoperative blood loss, and hidden blood loss were significantly reduced in the BE-LIF group compared with the MIS-TLIF group. Postoperative hospital times was statistically significantly shorter in the BE-LIF group. The VAS pain and ODI scores improved in both groups. At three days and one month, the VAS lower back pain scores were significantly better after BE-LIF. Clinical outcomes did not otherwise differ between groups.ConclusionsCompared with MIS-TLIF, BE-LIF has similar medium and short-term clinical outcomes. However, it is better regarding surgical trauma, early lower back pain, total and hidden blood loss, and recovery time. BE-LIF is an adequate option for selected LDD.

Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

PurposeVarious lumbar decompression techniques have been used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Few studies have compared the clinical efficacy of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lateral recess stenosis associated with DLS (LRS-DLS) in geriatric patients. The objective of the study was to compare the safety and short-term clinical efficacy of 270-degree PTED under local anesthesia and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LRS-DLS in Chinese geriatric patients over 60 years old.Materials and methodsFrom January 2017 to August 2019, the data of 90 consecutive geriatric patients with single-level L4-5 LRS-DLS were retrospectively reviewed, including those in the PTED group (n = 44) and MIS-TLIF group (n = 46). The patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. X-ray examinations were performed 1 year after surgery to assess the progression of spondylolisthesis in the PTED group and bone fusion in the MIS-TLIF group.ResultsThe mean patient ages in the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups were 70.3 years and 68.6 years, respectively. Both the PTED and MIS-TLIF groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the PTED group was similar to that in the MIS-TLIF group (90.9% vs. 91.3%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operative time, estimated blood loss, incision length, drainage time, drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and complications.ConclusionsBoth PTED and MIS-TLIF led to favorable outcomes in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS. In addition, PTED caused less severe trauma and fewer complications. In terms of perioperative quality-of-life and clinical outcomes, PTED could supplement MIS-TLIF in geriatric patients with LRS-DLS.

Clinical Efficacy of Bilateral Decompression Using Biportal Endoscopic Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study purpose was to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in terms of surgical trauma and short- to medium-term postoperative results. Forty-nine patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (25 underwent ULIF, 24 underwent MIS-TLIF) who were treated between May 2019 and October 2021, were included in this retrospective analysis. We compared the two groups' blood loss, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and slip percentage (SP). The modified Macnab score was obtained at the last follow-up. On the postoperative day, the CRP levels (P<0.05) were considerably lower in the ULIF group than those in the MIS-TLIF group. In addition, the ULIF group had significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss (P=0.00) and postoperative blood loss (P=0.00). After surgery, there was significant improvement in both groups in the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and in the ODI scores (P<0.05). Two weeks after surgery, the ODI and VAS scores for low back pain of the ULIF group were considerably lower than those of the MIS-TLIF group (P<0.05). The excellent and good rates of the Macnab criteria between the two groups were not significantly different at the last follow-up (P=0.95). The ULIF technique can effectively treat short-segment lumbar degenerative diseases and is a feasible alternative to the traditional minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-analysis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. To compare the results of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. The MIS-TLIF has been widely used in lumbar degenerative diseases and achieved favorable clinical effects. The main disadvantage is the limited working space and visualization, especially in the deeper operational field, for preparing fusion bed. In recent years, with the development of surgical techniques, optical technology, and special instruments, Endo-TLIF has gradually been applied. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the lumbar degenerative diseases. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, operative time, length of hospital stay and complications. Data analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3. Eight studies comprising 687 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled result revealed there was no significant differences in the VAS of leg, Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, and complication rate between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, the VAS of back in the Endo-TLIF group was significantly less than those in the MIS-TLIF group within 2 weeks after surgery [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-1.33 (-1.98, -0.68), P <0.0001] and at 3 months postoperatively [WMD=-0.72(-0.85, -0.59), P <0.00001]. The Endo-TLIF group also seemed to fewer VAS of back at the last follow-up (≥12mo) [WMD=-0.12 (-0.25, -0.00), P =0.05]. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group was associated with longer operation time [WMD=26.74 (2.14, 51.34), P =0.03], but shorter length of hospital stay [WMD=-1.98(-2.91, -1.05), P <0.0001]. Compared with minimally invasive TLIF, endoscopic TLIF achieved comparable improvement of symptoms and intervertebral fusion, longer operation time, and smaller surgical trauma. Endoscopic TLIF, which requires a demanding learning curve, maybe a feasible and effective technique for the patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative diseases.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study.

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and traditional open TLIF (O-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disc disease have been poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the outcomes between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF for patients with a degenerative disc disease, focusing on the functional capacity of patients in daily life. A prospective cohort study was performed, comparing 54 patients who underwent O-TLIF and 55 patients who underwent MI-TLIF with a follow-up of 4 years. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-item short form survey (SF-36), and a visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain). Radiological evaluation was also performed. At the final follow-up, compared with O-TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with significantly better intraoperative results, including similar operative time (p = 0.246), lower estimated blood loss (p = 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (p = 0.001). The final ODI score was significantly better in the MI-TLIF group (p = 0.031). The SF-36-physical (p = 0.023) and VAS pain (p = 0.024) scores were significantly better in the MI-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate (p = 0.747). The MI-TLIF technique is an effective and safe procedure for degenerative lumbar disc disease. Compared to traditional O-TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with less disability and higher quality of life, with a low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Comparing oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral screw fixation and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (OLIF-PETD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation complicated with lumbar instability

ObjectiveTo evaluate the early clinical effect of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral screw fixation and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (OLIF-PETD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation with lumbar instability.MethodsA total of 22 patients with lumbar disc herniation and lumbar instability from August 2017 to August 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The general information, perioperative indicators and complications were recorded. The clinical outcomes and radiological outcomes were evaluated before the operation, seven days after the operation, and at the last follow-up. Vertebral fusion and degree of multifidus muscle injury were evaluated at the last follow-up.ResultsIn this study, OLIF + PETD showed shorter incision length compared to the MIS-TLIF (P < 0.001). In the two groups, the clinical outcomes and radiological outcomes were significantly improved compared with the preoperative (P < 0.001). At the seven days after the operation and the last follow-up, the VAS of OLIF + PETD group was lower than that of MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). OLIF + PETD could give superior outcome in restoring disc height (P < 0.001), but the fusion segment angle of OLIF + PETD group was larger compared to the MIS-TLIF group seven days after the operation and at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). In addition, the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), but OLIF + PETD could avoid the multifidus injury (P < 0.001).ConclusionCompared to MIS-TLIF, OLIF-PETD can achieve satisfactory decompression effects and fusion rates with less multifidus injury and postoperative low back pain, which may be an alternative choice for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation combined with lumbar instability.

Radiological and clinical outcomes of midline lumbar fusion on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters for degenerative lumbar diseases.

Improving the sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters after fusion surgery is important for improving clinical outcomes. The impact of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) on sagittal lumbar-pelvic alignment for the management of degenerative lumbar diseases is still unknown. To analyze the effects of short-segment MIDLF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters. We retrospectively analyzed 63 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent single-segment MIDLF or MIS-TLIF. The imaging data of patients were collected before surgery and at the final follow-up. The radiological sagittal parameters included the lumbar lordosis (LL), lower LL, L4 slope (L4S), L5 slope (L5S), L5 incidence (L5I), L1 axis and S1 distance (LASD), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch (PI-LL). Additionally, the clinical outcomes, including lower back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, were also analyzed. In both groups, LL and Lower LL significantly increased, while L5I and LASD significantly decreased at the final follow-up compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). In the MIDLF group, L4S significantly decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05), while the mean SS significantly increased and the PT significantly decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). In the MIS-TLIF group, SS slightly increased and the mean PT value decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation, but without a statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the PI-LL in both groups was significantly reduced compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters between the two groups prior to operation and at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). In addition, the change in sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters did not differ significantly, except for ΔLASD within the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean lower back and leg pain VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved three months after surgery and at the final follow-up. Though the mean ODI score in the MIDLF group three months after surgery was slightly higher than that in the MIS-TLIF group, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final follow-up. Short-segment MIDLF and MIS-TLIF can equally improve sagittal lumbar parameters such as LL, Lower LL, L5I, and LASD in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. However, MIDLF had a larger impact on pelvic parameters than MIS-TLIF.

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 &lt; 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p &gt; 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p &gt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p &gt; 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 &lt; 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p &gt; 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.

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.