Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Ultrasonic bone curette-assisted unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS-TLIF for severe lumbar spinal stenosis

PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC) for treating severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and traditional tool laminectomy decompression MIS-TLIF for treating severe DLSS.MethodsThe clinical data of 128 patients with single-segment severe DLSS who were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 67 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC group), whereas 61 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using traditional tools (traditional group, control). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate back and lower limb pain before the operation,immediate postoperative, and one week, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Zurich claudication score (ZCQ) were employed to evaluate the improvement in low back and lower limb function. At the last follow-up, the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was utilized to evaluate bone graft fusion.ResultsThe decompression time of laminectomy was significantly shorter in the UBC group than in the traditional group (control group), and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores of the two groups after the operation were significantly improved compared to those before the operation (P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS back scores than the control group immediate postoperative and one week after the operation(P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS lower limb scores than the control group immediate postoperative (P < 0.05).The incidence of perioperative complications, hospitalization time, dural sac cross-sectional area (CSA), and dural sac CSA improvement rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS and ODI scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before,three, six months, one year, and two years after surgery (P > 0.05). The ZCQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before the operation at one week, six months, one year, and two years after the operation (P > 0.05). According to the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard, bone graft fusion did not occur significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05) at the last follow-up.ConclusionsUBC unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF in treating severe DLSS can achieve clinical efficacy as traditional tool unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF and reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage. It can also shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the work intensity of the operator, and reduce the degree of low back pain during short-term follow-ups. Therefore, this is a safe and effective surgical method.

Evolution of the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): From Open to Percutaneous to Patient-Specific.

The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has seen significant evolution since its early inception, reflecting advancements in surgical techniques, patient safety, and outcomes. Originally described as an improvement over the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), the TLIF began as an open surgical procedure, that notably reduced the need for the extensive neural retractation that hindered the PLIF. In line with the broader practice of surgery, trending toward minimally invasive access, the TLIF was followed by the development of the minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF), a technique that further decreased tissue trauma and postoperative complications. Subsequent advancements, including Trans-Kambin's Triangle TLIF (percLIF) and transfacet LIF, have continued to refine surgical access, minimize surgical footprint, and reduce the risk of injury to the patient. The latest evolution, as we will describe it, the patient-specific TLIF, is a culmination of the aforementioned adaptations and incorporates advanced imaging and segmentation technologies into perioperative planning, allowing surgeons to tailor approaches based on individual patient anatomy and pathology. These developments signify a shift towards more precise methods in spine surgery. The ongoing evolution of the TLIF technique illustrates the dynamic nature of surgery and emphasizes the need for continued adaptation and refinement.

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.

Endoscopic MIS-TLIF with Destandau's system: leveraging endoscopy with conventional instruments.

This presentation showcases an endoscopic minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) technique for lumbar interbody fusion. Significantly expanding the scope of Destandau's system within MISS, it serves as a pivotal link to unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) for endofusion. The method involves minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) using a 4-mm rigid endoscope through Destandau's system. With the widespread familiarity with Destandau's system and the absence of specialized instrument requirements, this approach is easily adoptable, particularly in resource-limited centers. The favorable clinical and radiological outcomes underscore the effectiveness of this technique, propelling the role of endoscopy in MISS, particularly in endofusion. The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2024.1.FOCVID23216.

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.

Perspective: How can risks to patients be limited during spine surgeons' learning curves?

Learning curves (LC) are typically defined by the number of different spinal procedures surgeons must perform before becoming "proficient," as demonstrated by reductions in operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events (AE), fewer conversions to open procedures, along with improved outcomes. Reviewing 12 studies revealed LC varied widely from 10-44 cases for open vs. minimally invasive (MI) lumbar diskectomy, laminectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and oblique/extreme lateral interbody fusions (OLIF/XLIF). We asked whether the risks of harm occurring during these LC could be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring (i.e., via industry, academia, or well-trained colleagues). We evaluated LC for multiple lumbar operations in 12 studies. These studies revealed no LC for open vs. MI lumbar diskectomy. LC required 29 cases for MI laminectomy, 10-44 cases for MI TLIF, 24-30 cases for MI OLIF, and 30 cases for XLIF. Additionally, the LC for MI ALIF was 30 cases; one study showed that 32% of major vascular injuries occurred in the first 25 vs. 0% for the next 25 cases. Shouldn't the risks of harm to patients occurring during these LC be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring? Twelve studies showed that the LC for at different MI lumbar spine operations varied markedly (i.e., 10-44 cases). Wouldn't and shouldn't spine surgeons avail themselves of routine in-person/intraoperative mentoring to limit patients' risks of injury during their respective LC for these varied spine procedures ?

Predictors for Failure to Respond to Erector Spinae Plane Block Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. To identify the risk factors associated with failure to respond to erector spinae plane (ESP) block following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). ESP block is an emerging opioid-sparing regional anesthetic that has been shown to reduce immediate postoperative pain and opioid demand following MI-TLIF-however, not all patients who receive ESP blocks perioperatively experience a reduction in immediate postoperative pain. This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing 1-level MI-TLIF who received ESP blocks by a single anesthesiologist perioperatively at a single institution. ESP blocks were administered in the OR following induction. Failure to respond to ESP block was defined as patients with a first numerical rating scale (NRS) score post-surgery of >5.7 (mean immediate postoperative NRS score of control cohort undergoing MI TLIF without ESP block). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify predictors for failure to respond to ESP block. A total of 134 patients were included (mean age 60.6 years, 43.3% females). The median and interquartile range (IQR) first pain score post-surgery was 2.5 (0.0-7.5). Forty-nine (36.6%) of patients failed to respond to ESP block. In the multivariable regression analysis, several independent predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF were identified: female sex (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04-5.98, P=0.040), preoperative opioid use (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.03- 7.30, P=0.043), anxiety requiring medication (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.27-11.49, P=0.017), and hyperlipidemia (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.31-7.55, P=0.010). Our study identified several predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF including female sex, preoperative opioid pain medication use, anxiety, and hyperlipidemia. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on perioperative outcomes and pain expectations following MI-TLIF with ESP block. III.

Evaluation of the safety, efficacy and technical advantages of spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing single lower lumbar level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, as an alternative to general anesthesia: a prospective study

Background: In spinal anesthesia, patients experience shorter OT, quicker recovery and ambulation, better post-operative analgesia and fewer complications than general anesthesia. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) shows fewer complications and early ambulation than open TLIF. Our study aims to assess spinal anesthesia’s safety, efficacy and technical benefits in MIS-TLIF. Methods: Patients unresponsive to conservative treatment for 6-8 weeks underwent MIS TLIF for lower lumbar degenerative pathologies. The demographic data, OT entry to incision time, blood loss, bandaging to exit from OT time, post anesthesia care unit (PACU) time, post-op complications, requirement of analgesia, visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, hospital stay, fusion rates and satisfaction scores were noted and assessed. Results: The study included a total of 200 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF with mean age being 54.32±10.36 years; mean surgery time being 165.23±21.41 minutes; and mean blood loss being 123.56±65.14 ml. The mean OT entry to incision time was 28.91±9.63 minutes, while the mean bandaging to exit time was 7.43±4.12 minutes. The mean PACU stay was 41.35±5.78 minutes. The mean hospital stay was 3.28±1.23 days, with 97% patients showing solid radiographic fusion while 92.5% patients were fully satisfied with the surgery. VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved as compared to the pre operative status. Conclusions: Spinal anesthesia for lower lumbar MIS-TLIF is cost effective and safe alternative to general anesthesia with lesser post operative pain and other side effects; taking into consideration proper patient selection for the same.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been widely used in spine surgery. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases (DLSD). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, and the outcomes included surgical parameters [operation time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic, accuracy of pedicle screw position, superior facet joint violation (FJV)], and clinical indexes (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, complications). Eleven articles involving 1066 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in operation time (WMD = -6.59; 95% CI -12.79 to -0.40; P = 0.04), blood loss (WMD = -34.81; 95% CI -50.55 to -19.08; P < 0.0001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = -18.24; 95% CI -30.63 to -5.85; P = 0.004), accuracy of pedicle screw position: Grade A (OR = 3.16; 95% CI 2.36-4.23; P < 0.00001), Grade B (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54; P < 0.00001), Grade C (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.54; P = 0.0002), and Grade D (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.98; P = 0.05), FJV: Grade 0 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI 1.34-8.02; P = 0.010), Grade 1 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.38; P < 0.00001), Grade 2 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51; P = 0.0002), and Grade 3 (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.93; P = 0.04). But no significant differences in VAS score, ODI, JOA score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, and complications. These results demonstrate a significant improvement in the intraoperative course of the RA technique. However, RA-MIS-TLIF has not yet demonstrated significant advantages in terms of postoperative symptom relief and functional improvement. Future research and clinical practice should further explore the efficacy of this technique to optimize outcomes and quality of life for patients with DLSD. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023454405).

The Impact of Posterior Intervertebral Osteophytes on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Retrospective cohort study. (1) To develop a reliable grading system to assess the severity of posterior intervertebral osteophytes and (2) to investigate the impact of posterior intervertebral osteophytes on clinical outcomes after L5-S1 decompression and fusion through anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). There is limited evidence regarding the clinical implications of posterior lumbar vertebral body osteophytes for ALIF and MIS-TLIF surgeries and there are no established grading systems that define the severity of these posterior lumbar intervertebral osteophytes. A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and leg Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 2-week, 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up time points were assessed. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 14.9 and VAS leg of 2.8 were utilized. Osteophyte grade was based on the ratio of osteophyte length to foraminal width. "High-grade" osteophytes were defined as a maximal osteophyte length >50% of the total foraminal width. A total of 70 consecutive patients (32 ALIF and 38 MIS-TLIF) were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient-reported outcome measures or achievement of MCID for Leg VAS or ODI preoperatively or at any follow-ups. On multivariate analysis, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with leg VAS or ODI scores at any follow-up time point. In addition, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with the achievement of MCID for leg VAS or ODI at 6 months. ALIF and MIS-TLIF are both valid options for treating degenerative spine conditions and lumbar radiculopathy, even in the presence of high-grade osteophytes that significantly occupy the intervertebral foramen. 3.

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.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.ResultsTotally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.ConclusionMinimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

[Comparison of screw placement guided by O-arm navigation and ultrasound volume navigation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion].

To compare the effectiveness of O-arm navigation and ultrasound volume navigation (UVN) in guiding screw placement during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery. Sixty patients who underwent MIS-TLIF surgery for lumbar disc herniation between June 2022 and June 2023 and met the selection criteria were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to group A (screw placement guided by UVN during MIS-TLIF) or group B (screw placement guided by O-arm navigation during MIS-TLIF), with 30 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in baseline data, including gender, age, body mass index, and surgical segment, between the two groups ( P>0.05). Intraoperative data, including average single screw placement time, total radiation dose, and average single screw effective radiation dose, were recorded and calculated. Postoperatively, X-ray film and CT scans were performed at 10 days to evaluate screw placement accuracy and assess facet joint violation. Pearson correlation and Spearman correlation analyses were used to observe the relationship between the studied parameters (average single screw placement time and screw placement accuracy grading) and BMI. The average single screw placement time in group B was significantly shorter than that in group A, and the total radiation dose of single segment and multi-segment and the average single screw effective radiation dose in group B were significantly higher than those in group A ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total radiation dose between single segment and multiple segments in group B ( P>0.05), while the total radiation dose of multiple segments was significantly higher than that of single segment in group A ( P<0.05). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of screw implantation between the two groups ( P>0.05). In both groups, the grade 1 and grade 2 screws broke through the outer wall of the pedicle, and no screw broke through the inner wall of the pedicle. There was no significant difference in the rate of facet joint violation between the two groups ( P>0.05). In group A, both the average single screw placement time and screw placement accuracy grading were positively correlated with BMI ( r=0.677, P<0.001; r=0.222, P=0.012), while in group B, neither of them was correlated with BMI ( r=0.224, P=0.233; r=0.034, P=0.697). UVN-guided screw placement in MIS-TLIF surgery demonstrates comparable efficiency, visualization, and accuracy to O-arm navigation, while significantly reducing radiation exposure. However, it may be influenced by factors such as obesity, which poses certain limitations.

Long-Term Results of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Elderly Patients: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.

Retrospective review of prospective data. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) may be beneficial for elderly patients due to decreased surgical morbidity and faster postoperative recovery. This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of MIS-TLIF in elderly patients and younger controls at minimum 5-year follow-up. There were 120 patients who underwent single-level MIS-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Elderly patients (≥70years; n = 30) and controls (<70years; n = 90) were matched 1:3 for demographics, comorbidities and preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Physical (SF-36 PCS) and Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain, and VAS leg pain were compared at 6months, 2years and 5years. Radiographic fusion, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and revision rates were assessed at mean 7.2 ± 2.0years. Elderly patients had longer length of stay (4.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4days, P = .035) and more readmissions (10% vs 1%, P = .019), but there was no difference in operative time, transfusions, complications or discharge disposition. All PROs were comparable at 5years and satisfaction rates were similar (93% elderly vs 91% controls, P = .703). The rates of radiographic fusion in the control group and elderly group were similar (94% vs 97%, P = .605), as were the rates of ASD (40% vs 33%, P = .503). There were 3 revisions (3.3%) in the control group (2 for ASD, 1 for screw loosening) but none in the elderly group (P = .311). Elderly patients undergoing MIS-TLIF achieved similar improvements in pain, disability and quality of life that were sustained at 5years.Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

A Review of Fully Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Over the past 10 years, fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (FE-LIF) has been widely reported as a rational alternative to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and several FE approaches for interbody fusion have been published. The short-term surgical outcomes of FE-LIF are reportedly superior to those of MIS-TLIF and conventional posterior LIF in terms of intraoperative blood loss and short-term back pain. However, the complication rate, medium-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate have not been reported to be different in all uncontrolled studies. The challenges associated with FE-LIF include a longer operative time, which means a steep learning curve, and limited surgical indications, which leads to patient selection bias. FE-LIF is an excellent surgical option for treating degenerative disc disease, spinal instability, and spondylolisthesis. Although the amount of evidence is very small in existing studies and the long-term follow-up data are limited, this technique shows favorable clinical outcomes in selected patients.

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.

101. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in single-level circumferential fusion

101. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation in single-level circumferential fusion

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.

Free-Hand MIS TLIF without 3D Navigation-How to Achieve Low Radiation Exposure for Both Surgeon and Patient.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is one of the most frequently performed spinal fusion techniques, and this minimally invasive (MIS) approach has advantages over the traditional open approach. A drawback is the higher radiation exposure for the surgeon when conventional fluoroscopy (2D-fluoroscopy) is used. While computer-assisted navigation (CAN) reduce the surgeon's radiation exposure, the patient's exposure is higher. When we investigated 2D-fluoroscopically guided and 3D-navigated MIS TLIF in a randomized controlled trial, we detected low radiation doses for both the surgeon and the patient in the 2D-fluoroscopy group. Therefore, we extended the dataset, and herein, we report the radiation-sparing surgical technique of 2D-fluoroscopy-guided MIS TLIF. Monosegmental and bisegmental MIS TLIF was performed on 24 patients in adherence to advanced radiation protection principles and a radiation-sparing surgical protocol. Dedicated dosemeters recorded patient and surgeon radiation exposure. For safety assessment, pedicle screw accuracy was graded according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification. In total, 99 of 102 (97.1%) pedicle screws were correctly positioned (Gertzbein grade A/B). No breach caused neurological symptoms or necessitated revision surgery. The effective radiation dose to the surgeon was 41 ± 12 µSv per segment. Fluoroscopy time was 64 ± 34 s and 75 ± 43 radiographic images per segment were performed. Patient radiation doses at the neck, chest, and umbilical area were 65 ± 40, 123 ± 116, and 823 ± 862 µSv per segment, respectively. Using a dedicated radiation-sparing free-hand technique, 2D-fluoroscopy-guided MIS TLIF is successfully achievable with low radiation exposure to both the surgeon and the patient. With this technique, the maximum annual radiation exposure to the surgeon will not be exceeded, even with workday use.