Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been widely reported a vascular and neurologic damage of the lumbar muscles produced in the classic posterior approach for lumbar spinal fusions. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate a better clinical and functional outcome in the postoperative and short term in patients undergoing minimal invasive surgery (“mini-open”) for this lumbar spinal arthrodesis. We designed a prospective study with a 30 individuals cohort randomized in two groups, depending on the approach performed to get a instrumented lumbar circumferential arthrodesis: “classic posterior” (CL group) or “mini-open” approach (MO group). Several clinical and functional parameters were assessed, including blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesic requirements and daily life activities during hospital stay and at the 3-month follow-up. Patients of the “mini-open approach” group had a significant lower blood loss and hospital stay during admission. They also had significant lower analgesic requirements and faster recovery of daily life activities (specially moderate efforts) when compared to the patients of the “classic posterior approach” group. No significant differences were found between two groups in surgery timing, X-rays exposure or sciatic postoperative pain. This study, inline with previous investigations, reinforces the concept of minimizing the muscular lumbar damage with a mini-open approach for a faster and better recovery of patients’ disability in the short term. Further investigations are necessary to confirm these findings in the long term, and to verify the achievement of a stable lumbar spinal fusion.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anand N, Hamilton JF, Perri B, Miraliakbar H, Goldstein T (2006) Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome. Spine 31(20):E748–E753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2000) Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 25(5):556–562

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE (2005) Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 30(8):934–936

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beringer WF, Mobasser JP (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine 29(4):455–463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral disc by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC (2007) Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(6):321–329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952. doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28(15 Suppl):S26–S35. doi:10.1097/00007632-200308011-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2002) Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27(11):1131–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24(10):1023–1028

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. German JW, Foley KT (2005) Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30(16 Suppl):S52–S59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14(6):551–558. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120(3):343–347. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1051624

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10(2):90–102. doi:10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14(6):533–540. doi:10.1097/00002517-200112000-00013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L, Fessler RG (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3(2):98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jang JS, Lee SH (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 3(3):218–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine 21(22):2683–2688

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1997) Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine 22(9):1018–1023

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich DT, Fessler RG (2002) Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 51(5 Suppl):S166–S181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim DY, Lee SH, Chung SK, Lee HY (2005) Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine 30(1):123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, Bae SC (2006) The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion. Spine 31(6):712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(1):31–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Madan S, Boeree NR (2002) Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 27(14):1536–1542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, Mooney V, Barnes D, Judge L, Smith S, Terry A (1989) Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine 14(1):33–36. doi:10.1097/00007632-198901000-00006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22(6):691–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mummaneni PV, Rodts GE Jr (2005) The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 57(4 Suppl):256–261. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000176408.95304.F3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR (2005) Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 14(9):887–894. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0941-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ozgur BM, Hughes SA, Baird LC, Taylor WR (2006) Minimally disruptive decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6(1):27–33. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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(5):537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Perkins AJ, Stump TE, Monahan PO, McHorney CA (2006) Assessment of differential item functioning for demographic comparisons in the MOS SF-36 health survey. Qual Life Res 15(3):331–348. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-1551-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB, Wang JC (2002) Single-level lumbar spine fusion: a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 15(5):355–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC (1999) Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine 24(4):402–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sasaoka R, Nakamura H, Konishi S, Nagayama R, Suzuki E, Terai H, Takaoka K (2006) Objective assessment of reduced invasiveness in MED. Compared with conventional one-level laminotomy. Eur Spine J 15(5):577–582. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0912-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI (2007) Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60(4 Suppl 2):203–212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J, Goldthwaite N, Koestler M (2001) A prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusions to 360 degrees fusions (circumferential fusions). Spine 26(10):E207–E212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–S6. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, Zwienenberg-Lee M, Alamin T, Bammer R (2006) Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):77–78. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000193820.42522.d9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Styf JR, Willén J (2005) The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine 23(3):354–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Thalgott JS, Chin AK, Ameriks JA, Jordan FT, Giuffre JM, Fritts K, Timlin M (2000) Minimally invasive 360 degrees instrumented lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 9(Suppl 1):S51–S56. doi:10.1007/PL00010022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tuttle J, Shakir A, Choudhri HF (2006) Paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Technical note and preliminary report on 47 cases. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Videbaek TS, Christensen FB, Soegaard R, Hansen ES, Høy K, Helmig P, Niedermann B, Eiskjoer SP, Bünger CE (2006) Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 31(25):2875–2880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ (2006) Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior–posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):92–97. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Whitecloud TSIII, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE (2001) Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis. J Spinal Disord 14(2):100–103. doi:10.1097/00002517-200104000-00002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, “Miguel Servet”University Hospital, Isabel La Católica s/n, 5009, Saragossa, Spain

    J. Rodríguez-Vela, A. Lobo-Escolar, E. Joven-Aliaga, A. Herrera, J. Vicente, E. Suñén, A. Loste & A. Tabuenca

  2. C/ Ginés Lalana 1, 10º B, 50007, Saragossa, Spain

    A. Lobo-Escolar

Authors
  1. J. Rodríguez-Vela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Lobo-Escolar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Joven-Aliaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Vicente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. Suñén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Loste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. Tabuenca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Lobo-Escolar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rodríguez-Vela, J., Lobo-Escolar, A., Joven-Aliaga, E. et al. Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18, 1194–1201 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation