Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine

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

Abstract

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques have been developed in recent 20 years. The goals of these procedures are to reduce approach-related soft tissue injury, postoperative pain, and disability while allowing the surgery to be conducted in an effective manner. There have been no prospective clinical reports published on the comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression or a traditional open approach. A prospective clinical study was performed by evaluating the clinical and radiographic results of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative new technique in the revision surgery for patients previously treated by open procedure. 52 patients (28 M, 24 F) with an average age of 55.7 (31–76) were prospectively evaluated. All patients who had previous discectomy (n = 13), hemilaminectomy (n = 16), laminectomy (n = 12) and facetectomy (n = 11) underwent monosegmental and bisegmental minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) (n = 25) or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) (n = 27) by two experienced surgeons at one hospital, from March 2006 to October 2008 (minimum 12-month follow-up). The following data were compared between the two groups: the clinical and radiographic results, operative time, blood loss, X-ray exposure time, postoperative back pain, and complications. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The operative time and clinical and radiographic results were basically identical in both groups. Comparing with the OTLIF group, the MiTLIF group had significantly less blood loss and less postoperative back pain at the second day postoperatively. The radiation time was significantly longer in the MiTLIF group. Complications included three cases of small dural tear in the MiTLIF group. There were five cases of dural tear and two cases of superficial wound infection in the OTLIF group. One case of nonunion was observed from each group. Minimally invasive TLIF is a safe and effective procedure for treatment of selected revision patients previously treated by open surgery with some potential advantages. However, this technique needs longer X-ray exposure time.

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. Cloward RB (1982) History of PLIF: forty years of personal experience. In: Lin PM (ed) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, pp 58–71

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cloward RB (1953) The treatment of ruptured intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion: Part I—indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:154–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ (1988) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop 227:99–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88–89

    Google Scholar 

  5. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG et al (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 26:567–571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1996) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 21:941–944

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H (1994) Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine 19:2598–2602

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljiarvi L et al (1993) Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine 18:575–581

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 23:354–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P et al (2005) Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 3:98–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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):S1–S6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G et al (2005) Minimally invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 14:887–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E et al (2008) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peng CWB, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo WM et al (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:1385–1389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kambin P (1993) Arthroscopic microdiscectomy of the lumbar spine. Clin Sports Med 12:143–150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SH, Choi WG, Lim SR et al (2004) Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J 4:644–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ et al (1989) Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine 14:33–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Arts MP, Nieborg A, Brand R et al (2007) Serum creatine phosphokinase as an indicator of muscle injury after various spinal and nonspinal surgical procedures. J Neurosurg 7:282–286

    Google Scholar 

  20. Selznik LA, Shamji MF, Isaacs RE (2009) Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ringel F, Stoffel M, Stuer C et al (2006) Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 59(4 Suppl 2):ONS361–ONS366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Affiliated Xinqiao Hospital, The Third Military Medical University, No. 2, Xinqiao Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400037, People’s Republic of China

    Jian Wang, Yue Zhou, Zheng Feng Zhang, Chang Qing Li, Wen Jie Zheng & Jie Liu

Authors
  1. Jian Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zheng Feng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chang Qing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wen Jie Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian Wang.

Additional information

The device(s)/drug(s) is/are FDA-approved or approved by corresponding national agency for this indication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, J., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Z.F. et al. 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, 623–628 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1578-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1578-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation