Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Analysis of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques for Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence for Neurosurgery

  • 403 Accesses

Abstract

Lumbar spinal fusion is an effective treatment for various pathologies, including degenerative conditions. With an aging population, the demand for spinal fusion procedures continues to increase. The morbidities associated with the traditional open midline techniques for spinal fusion, such as significant blood loss and prolonged hospitalization, may warrant consideration of alternative minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches. First described by Foley in 2003 [1], MIS techniques have become more widely utilized with the potential benefits of less structural damage to paraspinal tissues and faster postoperative recovery. As with any new surgical method, the associated learning curve requires time, potentially increasing the length of the operation and complication rates. To date, many studies have reported the outcomes of MIS lumbar fusion as well as the comparative analysis of open versus MIS approaches.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine. 2003;28:S26–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Briggs H, Milligan P. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg. 1944;26:125–30.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120:343–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine. 2007;32:537–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Flack B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M, Einola S, Kalimo H. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine. 1993;18:568–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sidhu GS, Henkelman E, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Hilibrand A, Anderson DG, et al. Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1792–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, Hansen ES, Fruensgaard S, Bunger CE. Volvo award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine. 1997;22:2813–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Eck JC, Hodges S, Humphreys SC. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:321–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18:624–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy. 2009;64:669–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mukai Y, Takenaka S, Hosono N, Miwa T, Fuji T. Intramuscular pressure of the multifidus muscle and low-back pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of mini-open and conventional approaches. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(6):651–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J. 2011;124:3868–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine. 2012;12:209–15.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. Archavlis E, Carvi y Nievas M. Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1731–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disk disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(10):E559–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng JS, Park P, Le H, Reisner L, Chou D, Mummaneni PV. Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference? Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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;9:560–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Djurasovic M, Rouben DP, Glassman SD, Casnellie MT, Carreon LY. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open TLIF: a propensity-matched cohort study. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(3):E77–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:316–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fan G, Wu X, Yu S, Sun Q, Guan X, Zhang H, et al. Clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:9540298.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Gao A, Zhao P, Zhou Y, Zhang Q, Cheng L. Efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease. Biomed Res. 2016;27(4):1309–15.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, He S, Cai X, Shen X, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop. 2014;38:817–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harris EB, Sayadipour A, Massey P, Duplantier NL, Anderson DG. Mini-open versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Am J Orthop. 2011;40(12):E257–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1171–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lau D, Khan A, Terman SW, Yee T, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(2):E10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lau D, Terman SW, Patel R, La Marca F, Park P. Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(4):356–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(11):2265–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19:829–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ntoukas V, Muller A. Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2010;53:21–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Oh CH, Hyun D, Yoon SH, Park H. Mini-open and conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion augmented by pedicle screw fixation: comparisonal result of clinical, perioperative parametric, functional and radiological assessments. J Spine. 2013;2:136.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:230–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pelton MA, Phillips FM, Singh K. A comparison of perioperative costs and outcomes in patients with and without workers’ compensation claims treated with minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2012;37:1914–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rampersaud YR, Gray R, Lewis SJ, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG. Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. SAS J. 2011;5(2):29–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven E, Muñoz-Marín J, Herrera A, Velilla J. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(12):2857–63.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine. 2013;38(23):2049–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, et al. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1694–701.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Starkweather AR, Witek-Janusek L, Nockels RP, Peterson J, Mathews HL. The multiple benefits of minimally invasive spinal surgery: results comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar fusion. J Neurosci Nurs. 2008;40(1):32–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sulaiman WA, Singh M. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J. 2014;14:32–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, Khan AA, La Marca F, Park P. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):644–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tian W, Xu YF, Liu B, Liu YJ, He D, Yuan Q, et al. Computer-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion may be better than open surgery for treating degenerative lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(6):237–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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. 2009;34(18):1923–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 2010;1:12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. 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. 2011;20:623–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(4):202–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang MY, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt MJ. Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(6):324–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA. An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;12:694–9.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wang YP, An JL, Sun YP, Ding WY, Shen Y, Zhang W. Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and traditional posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion in obese patients with lumbar disk prolapse. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:87–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA, Hu XY, Yan JZ, Li XF, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):279–304.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yee TJ, Terman SW, La Marca F, Park P. Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21:1796–801.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Zairi F, Arikat A, Allaoui M, Assaker R. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison between open and mini-open approaches with two years follow-up. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2013;74:131–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurological Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Lee Hwang, Vikram Chakravarthy, William Kemp, Michael Steinmetz & Edward Benzel

Authors
  1. Lee Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vikram Chakravarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Kemp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Steinmetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Edward Benzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee Hwang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Ronald H. M. A. Bartels

  2. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Maroeska M. Rovers

  3. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Gert P. Westert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hwang, L., Chakravarthy, V., Kemp, W., Steinmetz, M., Benzel, E. (2019). Comparative Analysis of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques for Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. In: Bartels, R., Rovers, M., Westert, G. (eds) Evidence for Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16323-5_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16323-5_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16322-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16323-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation