Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 11, pp 2300–2305 | Cite as

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease

  • Antonio TsahtsarlisEmail author
  • Martin Wood
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Methods

A prospective analysis of 34 consecutive patients who underwent a MI-TLIF using image guidance between July 2008 and November 2010. The patient group comprised 19 males and 15 females (mean age 56), 23 of whom had undergone additional reduction of spondylolisthesis. All patients underwent post-operative CT imaging to assess pedicle screw, cage placement and fusion at 6 months. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded pre-operatively and at 6-month follow up.

Results

33/34 (97.1 %) patients showed evidence of fusion at 6 months with a mean improvement of 27 on ODI scores. The mean length of hospital stay was 4 days. The mean operative time was 173 min.

Complications observed

1/34 (2.9 %) suffered a pulmonary embolism and 1/34 (2.9 %) patients developed transient nerve root pain post-operatively. There were no occurrences of infection and no post-operative CSF leaks.

Conclusion

MI-TLIF offers patients a safe and effective surgical treatment option to treat degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Keywords

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Minimally invasive spine surgery 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I: indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion [in german]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18(3):430–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grob D (2009) Surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 18(12):1991–1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y et al (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 120:1023–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B et al (1993) The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 18:568–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljiarvi L et al (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in post operative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Styf JR, Willen J (1998) 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 23:354–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molinari RW, Bridwell SJ, Klepps SJ et al (1999) Minimum 5 year follow up of anterior column structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Spine 24:967–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mannion R, Nowitzke A, Wood M (2010) Promoting fusion in minimally invasive lumbar interbody stabilisation with low dose BMP-2—but what is the cost? Spine J [E-pub prior to print]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park P, Foley KT (2008) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Neurosurg Focus 25:E16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mura PP, Costaglioli M, Piredda M, Caboni S, Casula S (2011) TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S57–S60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faundez AA, Schwender JD, Safriel Y, Gilbert TJ, Mehbod AA, Denis F, Transfeldt EE, Wroblewski JM (2009) Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior-posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective comparative study of 133 patients. Eur Spine J 18(2):203–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP et al (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(suppl 1):S1–S6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E et al (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY et al (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM et al (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z et al (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2011) Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20(4):623–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang J, Zhou Y, Zheng Z et al (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 19:1780–1784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) 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. Neurosurg Spine 9:560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P et al (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karikari IO, Isaacs RE (2010) Minimally invasive transforminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine 35:S294–S301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R (2010) Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 35:2273–2281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brisbane Clinical Neuroscience CentreThe Mater Private Hospital BrisbaneBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.The Mater Neuroscience CentreSuite 5.02 Mater Private ClinicSouth BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations