Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical outcomes during the learning curve of MIDline Lumbar Fusion (MIDLF®) using the cortical bone trajectory

  • Clinical Article - Spine
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to review the clinical outcomes of a novel minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technique for the treatment of instability of the lumbar spine using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT). We present a prospective review of the clinical outcomes from the first 25 consecutive cases in a single unit during the initial learning phase.

Materials and methods

The investigation group included the first 25 patients (eight males and 17 females) who underwent MIDLF® since the introduction of this technique in a single unit. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon. Patients’ demographics, as well as duration their surgery, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and complications were analyzed. From the patients’ satisfaction survey; pre and post-operative analgesics use, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for both back pain and radicular symptoms, as well as the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were measured and analyzed.

Results

There was a clear improvement in all measured parameters. The median intraoperative blood loss was 250 ml (200–700) with an average operative time of 190 (±46) and 237 (±14) min for one- and two-level fixation respectively and a median hospital stay of 2 days (1–12) inclusive of the day of surgery. The mean preoperative ODI was 59 % (±18.7) versus 34 % (±19.5) post-operatively. In this series, 84 % of the patients (n = 21) reported a significant reduction in the use of analgesia, and 44 % (n = 11) reported total freedom from intake of painkillers. The median postoperative pain-free walking distance increased from 50 (0–3520) to 1000 (0–8880) yards. Three complications were reported without any significant postoperative morbidity. While in this case series the preoperative ODI and back pain VAS significantly predicted the post-operative variable, the same could not be demonstrated for leg pain, preoperative walking distance, number of pain killers, or the patient body mass index (BMI).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that lumbar instrumentation using CBT is safe and effective with comparable results to those published for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) even with the learning curve of new procedures. Patients who underwent a MIDLF® needed a shorter operative time, and they were mobilized and discharged quicker, with figures almost similar to those from non-instrumented surgery. While in this case series the preoperative ODI and back pain VAS significantly predicted the post-operative variable, the same could not be demonstrated for leg pain, preoperative walking distance, number of pain killers, or the patient BMI. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed in order to better understand and assess the possible advantages of this technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cawley DT, Alexander M, Morris S (2014) Multifidus innervation and muscle assessment post-spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 23:320–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng WK, Inceoglu S (2015) Cortical and standard trajectory pedicle screw fixation techniques in stabilizing multisegment lumbar spine with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Int J Spine Surg 9:46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheung NK, Ferch RD, Ghahreman A, Bogduk N (2013) Long-term follow-up of minimal-access and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery 72:443–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X (2010) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19(2):316–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gonchar I, Kotani Y, Matsumoto Y (2014) Cortical bone trajectory versus percutaneous pedicle screw in minimally invasive posterior lumbar fusion. Spine J 14:S114–S115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gonchar I, Kotani Y, Matsui Y, Miyazaki T, Kasemura T, Masuko T (2014) Experience of 100 consecutive spine reconstructions using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws vs. traditional pedicle screws. http://www.smiss.org/abstract/experience-100-consecutive-spine-reconstructions-using-cortical-bone-trajectory-cbt-screws. Accessed 01 Jan 2016

  7. Glennie RA, Dea N, Kwon BK, Street JT (2015) Early clinical results with cortically based pedicle screw trajectory for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Clin Neurosci 22:972–975

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kojima K, Asamoto S, Kobayashi Y, Ishikawa M, Fukui Y (2015) Cortical bone trajectory and traditional trajectory—a radiological evaluation of screw-bone contact. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157:1173–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K (2015) Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: a finite element study. J Neurosurg Spine 23:471–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA (2009) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 9:366–373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wray S, Mimran R, Vadapalli S, Shetye SS, McGilvray KC, Puttlitz CM (2015) Pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine: effect of trajectory and screw design on acute biomechanical purchase. J Neurosurg Spine 22:503–510

  12. Mizuno M, Kuraishi K, Umeda Y, Sano T, Tsuji M, Suzuki H (2014) Midline lumbar fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 54:716–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wittenberg RH, Shea M, Swartz DE, Lee KS, White AA 3rd, Hayes WC (1991) Importance of bone mineral density in instrumented spine fusions. Spine 16:647–652

  14. Phan K, Hogan J, Maharaj M, Mobbs RJ (2015) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screw placement: a review of published reports. Orthop Surg 7:213–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Perez-Orribo L, Kalb S, Reyes PM, Chang SW, Crawford NR (2013) Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. Spine 38:635–641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ntoukas V, Muller A (2010) Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53:21–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32:537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu YC, Yao H, Wang QY, Hou G, Zhao HQ (2015) Analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly. Zhongguo Gu Shang 28(11):1021–1025

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Masood Hussain; Mrs. Sally Newton and Mrs. Helen Birnie for their efforts in data collection and patient follow-up.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neurosurgery Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK

    Bassam Dabbous, Daniel Brown & Vasileios Arzoglou

  2. Nuffield Department of Neurosurgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK

    Bassam Dabbous

  3. Consultant neurosurgeon and independent scholar, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Abraham Tsitlakidis

Authors
  1. Bassam Dabbous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abraham Tsitlakidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vasileios Arzoglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bassam Dabbous.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. No funds have been received in aid or towards this work from any of the manufacturers of any of the products used. Mr. Vasileios Arzoglou, the lead investigator, is a MIDLF course instructor.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dabbous, B., Brown, D., Tsitlakidis, A. et al. Clinical outcomes during the learning curve of MIDline Lumbar Fusion (MIDLF®) using the cortical bone trajectory. Acta Neurochir 158, 1413–1420 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2810-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2810-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation