Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18:430–434

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 21:2265–2270

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 15:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV (2001) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 48:569–574, discussion 574–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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:S1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 34:1385–1389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:1780–1784

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615–1620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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]

  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:E277-277E280

    Google Scholar 

  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 8:44–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:337–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:1410–1418

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 120:343–347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Blume HG (1985) Unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion: simplified dowel technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:75–84

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) In Process Citation. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 4:198–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Branch CL Jr (1996) The case for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Neurosurg 43:252–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. DiPaola CP, Molinari RW (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:130–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. German JW, Foley KT (2005) Minimal access surgical techniques in the management of the painful lumbar motion segment. Spine 30:S52–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Xiao Y, Li F, Chen Q (2010) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with one cage and excised local bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:591–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H (1999) Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 24:1023–1028

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 18:575–581

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 22:1765–1772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33:1683–1688

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Min S, Hwang S (2009) Minimal invasive unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by sublaminar decompression - comparison to bilateral approach. J Korean Orthop Assoc 44:7682

    Google Scholar 

  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 44:429435

    Google Scholar 

  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 250:538–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 100:13761–13766

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Thorne MC (2012) Regulating exposure of the lens of the eye to ionising radiations. J Radiol Prot 32:147–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Yanchang Road 301, Shanghai, 200072, People’s Republic of China

    Guangfei Gu, Hailong Zhang, Guoxin Fan, Shisheng He, Xiaobing Cai, Xiaolong Shen, Xiaofei Guan & Xu Zhou

Authors
  1. Guangfei Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hailong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guoxin Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shisheng He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaobing Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaolong Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaofei Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xu Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shisheng He.

Additional information

Guangfei Gu and Hailong Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gu, G., Zhang, H., Fan, G. et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 38, 817–824 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2169-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2169-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation