Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Patients Research Articles

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.

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.

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.

Recovery ratios and minimum clinically important difference for clinical outcomes in workers’ compensation recipients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF

There is a scarcity of literature that examines clinical outcomes through patient-reported outcomes (PROs), minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and recovery ratios (RR) for workers' compensation (WC) recipients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). WC claimants undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF were propensity score matched to account for demographic differences. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and PROs were collected. PROs of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative time points. MCID achievement was determined through comparison to values in literature. RR was calculated as the difference between postoperative and preoperative PROs over potential improvement. Comparison between surgical techniques was through non-parametric inferential statistics. Eighty-four WC claimants, with 50 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF, were identified after propensity score matching. ALIF patients had higher estimated blood loss. MIS-TLIF patients had higher postoperative day (POD) 0 VAS pain and POD 0 + 1 narcotic consumption. Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported significant improvement in physical function. ALIF patients reported superior 1-year PROMIS-PF, 6-week SF-12 PCS, 6-month VAS back, and 12-week VAS leg. No significant differences in MCID achievement rates were noted between cohorts. ALIF patients had higher RR in 6-week and 1-year PROMIS-PF and 6-week SF-12 PCS. Workers' compensation claimants undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported superior postoperative physical function and pain. ALIF patients had higher recovery ratios in physical function. Workers' compensation claimants undergoing ALIF may experience greater physical function recovery and superior clinical outcomes in physical function and pain.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures.

Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review. To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes. Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain. Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days. In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84). Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective: To evaluate postoperative improvements , complications, and reoperation rates between patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) undergoing oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).Methods: We retrospectively studied 113 LLS patients who underwent OLIF or MIS-TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between January 2016 and December 2018. We measured estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, cost, reoperation, and complication incidence, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores, discal and foraminal height, lumbar lordotic angle, and fusion status (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04778943). Results: OLIF was costlier than TLIF (p=0.001); however, the TLIF group had increased operation time, blood loss , and hospital stays (p=0.007, 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS and ODI scores significantly decreased while JOA and SF-36 scores significantly increased . The postoperative differences in main outcomes between the groups were insignificant (all p>0.05). The OLIF group had the lowest rates of overall (9.8% OLIF vs. 12.9% MIS-TLIF), intraoperative (3.9% OLIF vs. 4.8% MIS-TLIF), and postoperative complications (5.9% OLIF vs. 8.1% MIS-TLIF), but the differences were insignificant ( p =0.607, 0.813, and 0.653, respectively). The reoperation rate did not differ significantly (3.8% OLIF vs. 3.3% MIS-TLIF) (p =0.842). OLIF restored disc height (74.4% vs. 32.0%), foraminal height (27.4% vs. 18.2%), and lumbar lordotic angle (3.5% vs. 1.1%) with greater success than did MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate of the TLIF group (95.0%) was insignificantly lower than that of the OLIF group (98.1%, p =0.357). Conclusion: Patients undergoing OLIF with LSS improved similarly to MIS-TLIF patients. OLIF restored disc height, foraminal height, lumbar lordotic angle , and fusion rate more successfully than did MIS-TLIF. Clinical Trial: (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04778943). Funding: This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818). Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University. It was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the hospital’s ethics committee.

Biologics and Minimally Invasive Approach to TLIFs: What Is the Risk of Radiculitis?

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and allograft containing mesenchymal stem cells (live cell) are popular biologic substitutes for iliac crest autograft used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Use of these agents in the pathogenesis of postoperative radiculitis remains controversial. Recent studies have independently linked minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF with increased radiculitis risk compared to open TLIF. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of postoperative radiculitis in open and MIS TLIF patients along with its relationship to concurrent biologic adjuvant use. Patients ≥18 years undergoing single-level TLIF from June 2012 to December 2018 with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were rate of radiculitis, intra- and postoperative complications, revision surgery; length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). There were 397 patients: 223 with open TLIFs, 174 with MIS TLIFs. One hundred and fifty-nine surgeries used bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), 26 live cell, 212 neither. Open TLIF: higher mean EBL, LOS, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) than MIS. Postoperative radiculitis in 37 patients (9.32% overall): 16 cases MIS BMP (15.69% of their cohort), 6 MIS without BMP (8.33%), 5 open BMP (8.77%), 10 open without BMP (6.02%). MIS TLIF versus open TLIF: no differences in 1-year reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. BMP versus non-BMP: no differences in reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. Multivariate logistic regression found that neither BMP (P = .109) nor MIS (P = .314) was an independent predictor for postoperative radiculitis when controlled for age, gender, body mass index, and CCI. Using paired open and MIS groups (N = 168 each) with propensity score matching, these variables were still not independently associated with radiculitis (P = .174 BMP, P = .398 MIS). However, the combination of MIS with BMP was associated with increased radiculitis risk in both the entire patient cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 2.259 [1.117-4.569], P = .023, N = 397) and PSM cohorts (OR: 2.196 [1.045-4.616], P = .038, N = 336) compared to other combinations of surgical approach and biologic use. Neither the MIS approach nor BMP use is an independent risk factor for post-TLIF radiculitis. However, risk of radiculitis significantly increases when they are used in tandem. This should be considered when selecting biological adjuvants for MIS TLIF. 3.

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies.

Study Design:Age- and sex-matched cohort study.Objectives:To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies.Methods:We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort. Surgical data was collected for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and drain use. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), complications, and reoperations. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in global lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL).Results:Between 2016 and 2020, 38 MIS-TLIF patients were compared with 38 open-TLIF patients. No subfascial drain was used in the MIS-TLIF group (P < .001). The MIS-TLIF group had longer operative time (310.8 vs 276.5 minutes; P = .046) but less EBL (282.4 vs 420.8 mL; P = .007). LOS (P = .15), complication rates (P = .50), and revision rates (P = .17) were equivalent. VAS and ODI improved but did not differ between groups. In the open-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 81.6% and 86.9% of cases, respectively. In the MIS-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 86.8% and 97.4% of cases, respectively. There were no differences in changes in LL and SL between groups.Conclusions:Compared with the age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had reduced EBL and subfascial drain use but increased operative time. There were no differences in complications, reoperations, or LOS. Both groups demonstrated improvement in VAS and ODI. MIS-TLIF with bilateral facetectomies provided equivalent improvements in global and segmental LL.

A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade 1 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: An Analysis of the Prospective Quality Outcomes Database

Abstract INTRODUCTION Here, we compare minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) to traditional, open TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the largest study to date by sample size. METHODS We utilized the multicenter, prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-segment surgery with fully minimally invasive or open TLIF methods. Outcomes were compared 24 mo postoperatively: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale Back Pain (NRS-BP), NRS Leg Pain (NRS-LP), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Score, cumulative reoperation rate, and return to work (RTW) rate. Multivariate analyses were utilized to adjust for variables reaching P &lt; .20 on univariate analyses. RESULTS A total of 297 patients were included: 72 (24.2%) MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) open TLIF. Average age (MI-TLIF: 62.1 vs open TLIF: 59.5 yr) was similar (P = .10). MI-TLIF surgeries were associated with lower body mass index (29.5 ± 5.1 vs 31.3 ± 7.0, P = .0497) and more workman's compensation cases (11.1% vs 1.3%, P = .001). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS BP, NRS LP and EQ-5D (P &gt; .05). MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 mL, P &lt; .001), longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 min, P &lt; .001), and a trend toward decreased length of hospitalization (2.9 ± 1.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.6 d, P = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home healthcare was similar (94.4% vs 91.1%, P = .38). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for 24-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (P &gt; .001). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with superior ODI (ß = −4.7; 95% CI-9.3 −0.04; P = .048) and EQ-5D (ß = 0.06; 95% CI 0.009-0.11; P = .02). Though trends for superiority were evident for MI-TLIF, they did not reach statistical significance for NRS-BP (P = .06), NRS-LP (P = .07), and NASS Satisfaction (P = .06). Similarly, there was a trend for fewer reoperations following MI-TLIF, though this did not reach statistical significance (1.4% vs 7.6%, P = .10). A higher proportion of MI-TLIF patients were able to RTW following surgery (100% vs 80%, P = .02). CONCLUSION For single-level grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with superior outcomes for disability and quality of life compared with traditional, open TLIF. MI-TLIF was associated with higher rates of RTW and less blood loss, but longer operative times.

Modified Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique Can Potentially Improve Safety of Interbody Graft Placement.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) is a well-described procedure with excellent reported outcomes. A modification of interbody graft placement can potentially improve the ease and safety of this procedure. To describe a modification of the MITLIF graft placement and retrospectively review our experience including intraoperative and postoperative complications. Single surgeon, single institution, retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent a modified MITLIF technique between November 2011 and December 2013. Hospital records including operative notes and discharge summaries were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical parameters including operative time and estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications including durotomy/cerebrospinal fluid leak, and postoperative outcomes including time before ambulation and length of stay were all reviewed and analyzed. Eighty-three consecutive MITLIF patients; 71 underwent 1-level fusion and 12 had multilevel fusions. Average operative time for single level was 181 min; multilevel was 323min. Average estimated blood loss was 140 mL. Time before ambulation was <1 d, average length of stay was 1.6 d. There were a total of 4 complications in this series (4.8%). There was zero incidence of durotomy or cerebrospinal fluid leak. This modified MITLIF technique of maintaining the medial facet prior to discectomy and interbody graft placement can offer the minimally invasive spine surgeons increased assurance while placing the graft and potentially enhance the overall safety and efficacy of this approach. Surgeons utilizing this approach will have little difficulty utilizing this slight modification.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Attractive Option for Select Failed Backs.

Study DesignRetrospective case series.PurposeTo compare minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) outcomes in primary and revision surgeries.Overview of LiteratureRevision spinal fusion is often associated with an increased risk of approach-related complications. Patients can potentially benefit from the decreased approach-related morbidity associated with MI-TLIF.MethodsSixty consecutive MI-TLIF patients (20 failed back [Fa group], 40 primary [Pr group]) who underwent surgery between January 2011 and May 2012 were reviewed after Institutional Review Board approval to compare operative times, blood loss, complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain before surgery and at the last follow-up.ResultsNineteen revision surgeries were compared with 36 primary surgeries. One failed back and four primary patients were excluded because of inadequate data. The mean follow-up times were 28 months and 24 months in the Pr and Fa groups, respectively. The mean pre- and postoperative ODI scores were 53.18 and 20.23 in the Pr group and 52.01 and 25.72 in the Fa group, respectively (ODI percentage change: Pr group, 60.36%±29.73%; Fa group, 69.32%±13.72%; p=0.304, not significant). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores for back pain were 4.77 and 1.75 in the Pr group and 4.1 and 2.0 in the Fa group, respectively, and the percentage changes were statistically significant (VAS back pain percentage change: Pr group, 48.78±30.91; Fa group, 69.32±13.72; p=0.027). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores for leg pain were 6.52 and 1.27 in the Pr group and 9.5 and 1.375 in the Fa group, respectively (VAS leg pain percentage change: Pr group, 81.07±29.39; Fa group, 75.72±15.26; p=0.538, not significant). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss and no complications.ConclusionsMI-TLIF outcomes were comparable between primary and revision surgeries. The inherent technique of MI-TLIF is particularly suitable for select failed backs because it exploits the intact paramedian corridor.

Comparison of peri-operative and 12-month lifestyle outcomes in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional lumbar fusion

Aim: To compare the results of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) versus conventional lumbar interbody fusion in terms of peri-operative and long-term outcome measures.Design: Retrospective secondary data analysis.Subjects: The study involved patients who had primary single-level spinal interbody fusion between October 2012 and May 2014 with 1-year follow-up, resulting in 36 patients for MI-TLIF and 60 patients for open surgery.Method: Patients responded to Euro-Spine (TANGO) forms 12-month post-surgery, which provided the lifestyle factors. Peri-operative factors were retrieved from hospital notes. Operating time, length of post-operative stay, peri-operative complications, mobility, self-care, ability to perform daily activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety and depression, back and leg pain were observed in the study.Results: On average, MI-TLIF patients spent 3.25 days (±0.38) in hospital with conventional surgery patients staying for 6.92 days (±1.13). The average surgical time for MI-TLIF was 260.44 min (±9.95) compared to 297.05 min (±9.28) for open patients. Patients undergoing open surgery were more prone to post-operative complications than MI-TLIF patients (open 43.3%, MI-TLIF 16.7% p = 0.004). The TANGO data show statistical differences in severe pain (open 29%, MI-TLIF 17% p = 0.039), moderate mobility (open 69%, MI-TLIF 53% p = 0.011), and anxiety (open 14%, MI-TLIF 3% p = 0.034).Conclusion: MI-TLIF appears to have significant advantages over conventional surgery with statistically significant differences in length of stay, perioperative complications and pain, mobility and anxiety levels.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database for Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

A retrospective database review. The aim of this study was to compare data on various pain and functional outcomes for patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) and those who had open TLIF to better delineate which patients may benefit from each procedure. TLIF is a highly successful technique for the treatment of patients with degenerative instability or deformity. Minimally invasive approaches have been developed in an effort to improve outcomes by reducing tissue trauma and minimizing surgical time and blood loss. Although these approaches have been compared in the literature, there continues to be a debate about which patients may benefit from each procedure, and there is a dearth of information regarding short-term outcomes such as disposition status. We used the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) to assess outcomes of patients who underwent open or MiTLIF at a single institution from 2012 to 2014. Primary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, blood loss, discharge status, and return to work. We identified 98 patients with 3- and 12-month follow-up records. The open and MiTLIF groups had similar improvements in ODI and VAS at 3 and 12 months. MiTLIF patients had a significantly longer hospital stay (5.0 vs. 3.8 days for open TLIF, P < 0.001) and were more likely to discharge to a location other than home (P < 0.021). Open TLIF patients had shorter mean operative time (235 vs. 329 minutes for MiTLIF, P < 0.001) and more blood loss (307 vs. 120.2 mL for MiTLIF, P < 0.001). Although each approach demonstrated advantages and disadvantages, outcome measures at short-term follow-up were largely equivalent, suggesting that the selection of procedure should be based on which approach will offer the superior individual outcome. 4.

Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 82 patients, who underwent two-level minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) from March 2010 to December 2011. Forty-four patients underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) (group A) and 38 patients underwent the traditional open TLIF (group B). Demographic data and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups before surgery (p > 0.05). Peri-operative data, clinical and radiological outcomes between the two groups were compared. The mean follow-up period was 20.6 ± 4.5 months for group A and 20.0 ± 3.3 months for group B (p > 0.05). No significant difference existed in operating time between the two group (p > 0.05). X-ray exposure time was significantly longer for MITLIF compared to open cases. Intra-operative blood loss and duration of postoperatively hospital stay of group A were significantly superior to those of group B (p < 0.05). On postoperative day three, MITLIF patients had significantly less pain compared to patients with the open procedure. No statistical difference existed in pre-operative and latest VAS value of back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), pre-operative and latest ODI between the two groups. The fusion rate of the two groups was similar (p < 0.05). Complications included small dural tear, superficial wound infection and overlong screws. When comparing the total complications, no significant difference existed between the groups (p > 0.05). MITLIF offers several potential advantages including postoperative back pain and leg pain, intra-operative blood loss, transfusion and duration of hospital stay postoperatively in treating two-level lumbar degenerative disease. However, it required much more radiation exposure.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference?

Previous studies comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) with open TLIF have demonstrated that MITLIF reduces blood loss and decreases postoperative pain while preserving fusion rates and reducing complications. In this study, the authors wanted to compare outcomes of MITLIF with those of open TLIF to determine whether MITLIF also improves postoperative functional mobility and decreases the usage of pain medication. In total, 75 consecutive patients who underwent either single-level open TLIF or MITLIF at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2006 and 2011 were included, and patients were followed up for an average of 5.05 years. Fifty patients underwent MITLIF and 25 underwent open TLIF. Primary outcomes included administration of morphine-equivalent narcotics and functional status on postoperative Day 1. Secondary outcomes included operative characteristics, complications, long-term fusion rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. No statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), level of disease, or surgical indication were detected between the open TLIF and MITLIF groups. Similarly, preoperative medication usage did not significantly differ between these groups. Intraoperatively, compared with TLIF, MITLIF resulted in decreased lengths of operation, lower blood loss, and fewer complications (p < 0.05). Total administration of morphine-equivalent pain medication in the hospital also tended to be lower in the MITLIF than in the TLIF group. Functional assessment by physical therapy on postoperative Day 1 demonstrated higher function in the MITLIF patients for transfer-related tasks, ambulatory ability, and distance walked than in the TLIF patients (p < 0.05). This translated to shorter inpatient hospitalizations (6.05 vs 4.8 days for open TLIF vs MITLIF patients, respectively, p = 0.006) and an average cost reduction of $3885 per MITLIF patient. Long-term fusion rates were 92% in the MITLIF group and 100% in the open TLIF group (p = 0.09). Preoperative VAS pain scores were 7.1 for the MITLIF patients and 7.6 for the TLIF patients (p = 0.26). At the last follow-up, the reported VAS pain score was 2.9 in the MITLIF patients and 3.5 in the open TLIF patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). There was also no statistically significant difference in the degree change in this score (p = 0.44). The MITLIF approach achieves improved functional mobility, decreases the usage of postoperative pain medication, and significantly reduces cost compared with open TLIF while preserving long-term fusion rates. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study comparing the postoperative usage of pain medication between treatments in the postoperative period before discharge.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Prospective observational cohort study. Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level open versus minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at 6 months and 2-year follow-up. There is recognition that more data are required to ascertain the benefits and risks of MIS vis-a-vis open TLIF. This study aims to report on one of the largest currently available series comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of the two procedures with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. From January 2002 to March 2008, 144 single-level open and MIS TLIF were performed at our centre, with 72 patients in each group. Clinical outcomes were based on patient-reported outcome measures recorded at the Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre by independent assessors before surgery, at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively. These were visual analogue scores (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), short form-36 (SF-36), North American Spine Society (NASS) scores for neurogenic symptoms, returning to full function, and patient rating of the overall result of surgery. Radiological fusion based on the Bridwell grading system was also assessed at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively by independent assessors. In terms of demographics, the two groups were similar in terms of patient sample size, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), spinal levels operated, and all the clinical outcome measures (p > 0.05). Perioperative analysis revealed that MIS cases have comparable operative duration (open: 181.8 min, MIS: 166.4 min, p > 0.05), longer fluoroscopic time (open: 17.6 s, MIS: 49.0 s, p < 0.05), less intra-operative blood loss (open: 447.4 ml, MIS: 50.6 ml, p < 0.05) and no post-operative drainage (open: 528.9 ml, MIS: 0 ml, p < 0.05). MIS patients needed less morphine (open: 33.5 mg, MIS: 3.4 mg, p < 0.05) and were able to ambulate (open: 3.4 days, MIS: 1.2 days, p < 0.05) and be discharged from hospital earlier (open: 6.8 days, MIS: 3.2 days, p < 0.05). At 6 months, clinical outcome analysis showed both groups improving significantly (>50.0%) and similarly in terms of VAS, ODI, SF-36, return to full function and patient rating (p > 0.05). Radiological analysis showed similar grade 1 fusion rates (open: 52.2%, MIS: 59.4%, p > 0.05) with small percentage of patients developing asymptomatic cage migration (open: 8.7%, MIS: 5.8%, p > 0.05). One major complication (open: myocardial infarction, MIS: screw malpositioning requiring subsequent revision) and two minor complications in each group (open: pneumonia and post-surgery anemia, MIS: incidental durotomy and pneumonia) were noted. At 2 years, continued improvements were observed in both groups as compared to the preoperative state (p > 0.05), with 50.8% of open and 58% of MIS TLIF patients returning to full function (p > 0.05). Almost all patients have Grade 1 fusion (open: 98.5 %, MIS: 97.0%, p > 0.05) with minimal new cage migration (open: 1.4 %, MIS: 0%, p > 0.05). MIS TLIF is a safe option for lumbar fusion, and when compared to open TLIF, has similar operative duration, good clinical and radiological outcomes, with additional significant benefits of less perioperative blood loss and pain, earlier rehabilitation, and a shorter hospitalization.

Lumbar degenerative spinal deformity: Surgical options of PLIF, TLIF and MI-TLIF

Degenerative disease of the lumbar spine is common in ageing populations. It causes disturbing back pain, radicular symptoms and lowers the quality of life. We will focus our discussion on the surgical options of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative spinal deformities, which include symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. Through a description of each procedure, we hope to illustrate the potential benefits of TLIF over PLIF. In a retrospective study of 53 ALIF/PLIF patients and 111 TLIF patients we found reduced risk of vessel and nerve injury in TLIF patients due to less exposure of these structures, shortened operative time and reduced intra-operative bleeding. These advantages could be translated to shortened hospital stay, faster recovery period and earlier return to work. The disadvantages of TLIF such as incomplete intervertebral disc and vertebral end-plate removal and potential occult injury to exiting nerve root when under experienced hands are rare. Hence TLIF remains the mainstay of treatment in degenerative deformities of the lumbar spine. However, TLIF being a unilateral transforaminal approach, is unable to decompress the opposite nerve root. This may require contralateral laminotomy, which is a fairly simple procedure. The use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) to treat degenerative lumbar spinal deformity is still in its early stages. Although the initial results appear promising, it remains a difficult operative procedure to master with a steep learning curve. In a recent study comparing 29 MI-TLIF patients and 29 open TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, with no difference in SF-36 scores at six months and two years. Whether it can replace traditional TLIF as the surgery of choice for degenerative lumbar deformity remains unknown and more studies are required to validate the safety and efficiency.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Objective To evaluate outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Background MI-TLIF is a relatively novel technique for treating symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. It has become a popular option for lumbar arthrodesis largely because of its potential to minimize iatrogenic trauma to the soft tissue, paraspinous muscles as well as to neural elements. Methods Literature search using PubMed database. Results Eight retrospective clinical studies and 1 prospective clinical study were identified. No randomized studies were found. The indications for surgery were low-back pain and/or radicular symptoms secondary to spondylolisthesis and/or degenerative disc disease. Analysis of radiographic outcomes demonstrated a fusion rate greater than 90% in the vast majority of patients. Patients also experienced a significant improvement in functional outcome parameters at a mean follow-up of 20 months. Comparison of functional outcomes of MI-TLIF patients to a similar matched cohort of patients who underwent conventional open TLIF did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference between both cohorts. Conclusion For carefully selected patients, MI-TLIF has a very favorable long term outcome that is comparable to conventional open TLIF, with the added benefit of decreased adjacent tissue injury.