Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

  • 2527 Accesses

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgical techniques continue to gain popularity to treat surgical pathology of the lumbar spine. This chapter will focus on the surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis with minimally invasive techniques. The advantages of using the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique to surgically treat spondylolisthesis will be detailed, as well as decompression and instrumentation techniques. Indications, contraindications, and technical pearls will be discussed with reference to the less invasive technologies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, Nelson WE. The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1968;50(5):919–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiltse LL, Spencer CW. New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13(6):696–706.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearson A, Blood E, Lurie J, et al. Degenerative spondylolisthesis versus spinal stenosis: does a slip matter? Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(3):298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pao JL, Chen WC, Chen PQ. Clinical outcomes of microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(5):672–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sasai K, Umeda M, Maruyama T, Wakabayashi E, Iida H. Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9(6):554–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kleeman TJ, Hiscoe AC, Berg EE. Patient outcomes after minimally destabilizing lumbar stenosis decompression: the “Port-Hole” technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(7):865–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pizzutillo PD, Hummer 3rd CD. Nonoperative treatment for painful adolescent spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9(5):538–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sailhan F, Gollogly S, Roussouly P. The radiographic results and neurologic complications of instrumented reduction and fusion of high-grade spondylolisthesis without decompression of the neural elements: a retrospective review of 44 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(2):161–9; discussion 170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu SS, Bradford DS, Transfeldt EE, Cohen M. Reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis using Edwards instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(3):367–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Petraco DM, Spivak JM, Cappadona JG, Kummer FJ, Neuwirth MG. An anatomic evaluation of L5 nerve stretch in spondylolisthesis reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(10):1133–8; discussion 1139.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Poussa M, Remes V, Lamberg T, et al. Treatment of severe spondylolisthesis in adolescence with reduction or fusion in situ: long-term clinical, radiologic, and functional outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(5):583–90; discussion 591–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hresko MT, Labelle H, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E. Classification of high-grade spondylolistheses based on pelvic version and spine balance: possible rationale for reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2208–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Molinari RW, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Ungacta FF, Riew KD. Complications in the surgical treatment of pediatric high-grade, isthmic dysplastic spondylolisthesis. A comparison of three surgical approaches. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(16):1701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shufflebarger HL, Geck MJ. High-grade isthmic dysplastic spondylolisthesis: monosegmental surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(6 Suppl):S42–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15 Suppl):S26–35.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(Suppl):S1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sasso RC, Shively KD, Reilly TM. Transvertebral Transsacral strut grafting for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis L5-S1 with fibular allograft. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(5):328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith MD, Bohlman HH. Spondylolisthesis treated by a single-stage operation combining decompression with in situ posterolateral and anterior fusion. An analysis of eleven patients who had long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(3):415–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bohlman HH, Cook SS. One-stage decompression and posterolateral and interbody fusion for lumbosacral spondyloptosis through a posterior approach. Report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(3):415–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Minamide A, Akamaru T, Yoon ST, Tamaki T, Rhee JM, Hutton WC. Transdiscal L5-S1 screws for the fixation of isthmic spondylolisthesis: a biomechanical evaluation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(2):144–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson K, Sarwark JF, Conway JJ, Logue ES, Schafer MF. Quantitative assessment with SPECT imaging of stress injuries of the pars interarticularis and response to bracing. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20(1):28–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Blanda J, Bethem D, Moats W, Lew M. Defects of pars interarticularis in athletes: a protocol for nonoperative treatment. J Spinal Disord. 1993;6(5):406–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. d’Hemecourt PA, Zurakowski D, Kriemler S, Micheli LJ. Spondylolysis: returning the athlete to sports participation with brace treatment. Orthopedics. 2002;25(6):653–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Noggle JC, Sciubba DM, Samdani AF, Anderson DG, Betz RR, Asghar J. Minimally invasive direct repair of lumbar spondylolysis with a pedicle screw and hook construct. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Kim YS, et al. Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22(4):646–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(8):941–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor H, McGregor AH, Medhi-Zadeh S, et al. The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(24):2758–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(2):77–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H. Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(18):1923–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(5):575–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, et al. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14(1):33–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(13):1385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33(6):1683–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9(6):560–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG. Surgical site infection rates after minimally invasive spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11(4):471–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(8):479–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(18):1548–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rampersaud YR, Foley KT, Shen AC, Williams S, Solomito M. Radiation exposure to the spine surgeon during fluoroscopically assisted pedicle screw insertion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(20):2637–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bindal RK, Glaze S, Ognoskie M, Tunner V, Malone R, Ghosh S. Surgeon and patient radiation exposure in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9(6):570–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Raley DA, Mobbs RJ. Retrospective computed tomography scan analysis of percutaneously inserted pedicle screws for posterior transpedicular stabilisation of the thoracic and lumbar spine: accuracy and complication rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:1092–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ. Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(2):92–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kwon BK, Berta S, Daffner SD, et al. Radiographic analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16(5):469–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, et al. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(2):114–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosen DS, Ferguson SD, Ogden AT, Huo D, Fessler RG. Obesity and self-reported outcome after minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(5):956–60; discussion 960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Park P, Upadhyaya C, Garton HJ, Foley KT. The impact of minimally invasive spine surgery on perioperative complications in overweight or obese patients. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(3):693–9; discussion 693–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Recnik G, Kosak R, Vengust R. Influencing segmental balance in isthmic spondylolisthesis using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26:246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Residency Program, VAMC Fresno, Fresno, CA, USA

    Siddharth B. Joglekar MD

  2. UCSF Fresno, Fresno, CA, USA

    Siddharth B. Joglekar MD

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Twin Cities Spine Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    James D. Schwender MD

Authors
  1. Siddharth B. Joglekar MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James D. Schwender MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James D. Schwender MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Frank Phillips

  2. Scoliosis and Spine Tumor Center, Texas Back Institutes, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Plano, Plano, Texas, USA

    Isador Lieberman

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

    David Polly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Joglekar, S.B., Schwender, J.D. (2014). Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. In: Phillips, F., Lieberman, I., Polly, D. (eds) Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5674-2_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5674-2_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5673-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5674-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation