Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF

Evaluating the efficacy and suggesting technical optimizations for endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion across different lumbar spondylolisthesis types

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of the endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion technique across different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis, specifically Grade I and Grade II, and suggest technical optimizations based on therapeutic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction for both grades.

Methods

We analyzed data from 57 L4 to 5 spondylolisthesis patients, all categorized as either Grade I or Grade II, comprising 31 males and 26 females. Of these, 36 were diagnosed with Grade I and 21 with Grade II. All subjects underwent the endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion procedure. Primary evaluation metrics included pre and post-operative Vasual Analogue Scale（VAS） pain scores, Osewewtry Disability Index（ODI） functional scores, surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, degree of spondylolisthesis correction, complications, and patient satisfaction levels.

Results

At a minimum of 6 months post-operation, the VAS score for the Grade I cohort reduced from an initial 7.30 ± 0.69 to 2.97 ± 0.47, while the Grade II cohort saw a decrease from 7.53 ± 0.56 to 3.37 ± 0.62 (P = 0.0194). The ODI score in the Grade I group declined from 66.88 ± 5.15 % pre-operation to 29.88 ± 6.36 % post-operation, and in the Grade II group, it decreased from 69.33 ± 5.27 % to 34.66 ± 6.01 % (P = 0.0092). The average surgical duration for the Grade I group stood at 155.72 ± 17.75 min, compared to 180.38 ± 14.72 min for the Grade II group (P < 0.001). The mean intraoperative blood loss for the Grade I group was 144.58 ± 28.61 ml, whereas the Grade II group registered 188.23 ± 9.41 ml (P < 0.001). Post-surgery, 83 % of the Grade I patients achieved a correction degree exceeding 80 %, and 61 % of the Grade II patients surpassed 50 % (P = 0.0055). Complication rates were recorded at 8 % for Grade I and 16 % for Grade II. Patient satisfaction reached 94 % in the Grade I cohort and 90 % in the Grade II cohort.

Conclusion

Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion showcases promising therapeutic outcomes for both Grade I and Grade II lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, surgeries for Grade II spondylolisthesis tend to be lengthier, more challenging, involve greater blood loss, and have a heightened complication risk. Tailored technical adjustments and enhancements are essential for addressing the distinct spondylolisthesis types.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

This study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease.

CONCLUSION

In this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.

Ultrasonic bone curette-assisted unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS-TLIF for severe lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC) for treating severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and traditional tool laminectomy decompression MIS-TLIF for treating severe DLSS.

METHODS

The clinical data of 128 patients with single-segment severe DLSS who were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 67 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC group), whereas 61 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using traditional tools (traditional group, control). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate back and lower limb pain before the operation,immediate postoperative, and one week, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Zurich claudication score (ZCQ) were employed to evaluate the improvement in low back and lower limb function. At the last follow-up, the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was utilized to evaluate bone graft fusion.

RESULTS

The decompression time of laminectomy was significantly shorter in the UBC group than in the traditional group (control group), and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores of the two groups after the operation were significantly improved compared to those before the operation (P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS back scores than the control group immediate postoperative and one week after the operation(P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS lower limb scores than the control group immediate postoperative (P < 0.05).The incidence of perioperative complications, hospitalization time, dural sac cross-sectional area (CSA), and dural sac CSA improvement rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS and ODI scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before,three, six months, one year, and two years after surgery (P > 0.05). The ZCQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before the operation at one week, six months, one year, and two years after the operation (P > 0.05). According to the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard, bone graft fusion did not occur significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

UBC unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF in treating severe DLSS can achieve clinical efficacy as traditional tool unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF and reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage. It can also shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the work intensity of the operator, and reduce the degree of low back pain during short-term follow-ups. Therefore, this is a safe and effective surgical method.