Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 817–824 | Cite as

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

  • Guangfei Gu
  • Hailong Zhang
  • Guoxin Fan
  • Shisheng HeEmail author
  • Xiaobing Cai
  • Xiaolong Shen
  • Xiaofei Guan
  • Xu Zhou
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Minimally invasive Two-level Lumbar degenerative disease 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Xia Zhang, a nurse in our hospital, for her excellent daily work in our surgery.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18:430–434PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:2265–2270PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 15:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV (2001) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48:569–574, discussion 574–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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:S1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19:1780–1784PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kai Z, Wei S, Chang-Qing Z, Hua L, Wei D, You-Zhuan X, Xiao-Jiang S, Jie Z (2013) Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 2013 Aug 6. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gu G, Zhang H, He S, Jia J, Fu Q, Zhou X (2013) Preoperative localization methods for minimally invasive surgery in lumbar spine: comparisons between a novel method and conventional methods. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E277-277E280Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Baek S, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR (2008) Biomechanics of unilateral compared with bilateral lumbar pedicle screw fixation for stabilization of unilateral vertebral disease. J Neurosurg Spine 8:44–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:337–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K (1995) Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects. Spine 20:1410–1418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 120:343–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blume HG (1985) Unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion: simplified dowel technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:75–84Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) In Process Citation. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taneichi H, Suda K, Kajino T, Matsumura A, Moridaira H, Kaneda K (2006) Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 4:198–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Branch CL Jr (1996) The case for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Neurosurg 43:252–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DiPaola CP, Molinari RW (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:130–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    German JW, Foley KT (2005) Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30:S52–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xiao Y, Li F, Chen Q (2010) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with one cage and excised local bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:591–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24:1023–1028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber BR, Grob D, Dvorak J, Muntener M (1997) Posterior surgical approach to the lumbar spine and its effect on the multifidus muscle. Spine 22:1765–1772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Min S, Hwang S (2009) Minimal invasive unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by sublaminar decompression - comparison to bilateral approach. J Korean Orthop Assoc 44:7682Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Min S, Lee D (2009) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low grade spondylolisthesis - comparison of the unilateral and bilateral approaches. J Korean Orthop Assoc 44:429435Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein LW, Miller DL, Balter S, Laskey W, Haines D, Norbash A, Mauro MA, Goldstein JA (2009) Occupational health hazards in the interventional laboratory: time for a safer environment. Radiology 250:538–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, Lubin JH, Preston DL, Preston RJ, Puskin JS, Ron E, Sachs RK, Samet JM, Setlow RB, Zaider M (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13761–13766PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thorne MC (2012) Regulating exposure of the lens of the eye to ionising radiations. J Radiol Prot 32:147–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guangfei Gu
    • 1
  • Hailong Zhang
    • 1
  • Guoxin Fan
    • 1
  • Shisheng He
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xiaobing Cai
    • 1
  • Xiaolong Shen
    • 1
  • Xiaofei Guan
    • 1
  • Xu Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s HospitalTongji University School of MedicineShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations