Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion rates performed without posterolateral fusion

Validation of Impaction Grafting for Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Technical Pearls and MicroCT Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) represents a well-documented operative surgical technique utilized in the management of lumbar pathology requiring interbody arthrodesis. The microstructural properties of impaction grafting (IG) after TLIF has yet to be reported.

PURPOSE

The current study was designed first, to quantify the degree, to which IG augmentation would increase intrabody final bone volume and bone graft surface contact area with the endplates; secondly to quantify the volumes of locally harvested bone and bone needed for maximal impaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three cadaveric lumbosacral spine specimens were dissected into L1-L2, L3-L4, and L5-S1 motion segments for a total of 9 functional spinal units. Each interbody unit underwent a TLIF procedure with the implantation of an interbody spacer containing autogenous morselized bone. Microcomputed tomography scans were then performed to evaluate the final bone volume and bone surface contact area (BSCA). Subsequently, IG augmented TLIF procedure was carried and microcomputed tomography scans were repeated.

RESULTS

IG augmentation of TLIF exhibited a 346% increase in final bone volume (TLIF: 0.30 ± 0.07 cm 3 ; IG-TLIF: 1.34 ± 0.42 cm 3 ; P < 0.05) and a 152% increase in BSCA (TLIF: 45.06 ± 15.47%; IG-TLIF: 68.28 ± 6.85%; P < 0.05) when compared with the nonimpacted TLIF treatment. In addition, the average amount of autogenous bone collected was 8.21±2.08 cm 3 , which sufficiently fulfilled the requirements for bone grafting (TLIF: 1.23 ± 0.40 cm 3 ; IG-TLIF 6.42 ± 1.20 cm 3 ).

CONCLUSIONS

IG augmentation of TLIF significantly improved final bone volume in the disc space and BSCA with vertebral endplates in vitro.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Greater BSCA and final volume of bone graft reflect promisingly on their potential to increase fusion rates. Clinical studies will be needed to corroborate these findings.

Scapular bone grafting with allograft pin fixation for repair of bony Bankart lesions: A biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Severe bony Bankart lesions are a difficult challenge in clinical treatment and research. The current treatment methods consist mostly of Latarjet-Bristow surgery and its modified procedures. While good results have been achieved, there are also complications such as coracoid fracture, bone graft displacement, and vascular and nerve injury.

AIM

To analyze the techniques and biomechanical properties of transversely fixing a bone block from the scapular spine using bone allograft pins with suture threads to repair bony Bankart lesions.

METHODS

Fresh human shoulder joint specimens and a cadaver specimen model for scapular bone grafting with allograft pin fixation for repair of bony Bankart lesions were used. When the humeral rotation angles were 0°, 30°, 60° and 90°, and the axial loads were 30 N, 40 N, and 50 N, the humerus displacement was studied by biomechanical experiments.

RESULTS

When the angle of external rotation of the humerus was 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°, with axial loads of 30 N, 40 N, and 50 N, the data of the normal control group, allograft pin repair group, and titanium alloy hollow screw repair group were compared with each other by the q-test, which showed that there were no statistically differences among the three groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The joints repaired with bone block from the scapular spine transversely fixed with allograft bony pins to repair bony Bankart lesions show good mechanical stability. The bone block has similar properties to normal glenohumeral joints in terms of biomechanical stability.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status

Minimally invasive lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has become the most commonly performed lumbar fusion procedure. There are multiple variables such as bone graft properties, use of rhBMP (recombinant human bone morphogenic protein), interbody cage properties, image guidance techniques, etc., that may impact the outcomes and fusion rates. Radiation exposure to the patient as well as to the operating team is an important concern. The minimally invasive anterior approaches for lumbar fusion with ability to insert larger cages and achieve better sagittal correction have added another option in management of lumbar degenerative deformities. A literature review of recent studies and systematic reviews on different aspects impacting the outcomes of MIS TLIF has been done to define the present status of the procedure in this narrative review. Iliac crest bone graft can help achieve very good fusion rate without significantly increasing the morbidity. RhBMP is most potent enhancer of fusion and the adverse effects can be avoided by surgical technique and using lower dose. The use of navigation techniques has reduced the radiation exposure to patient and the surgeons but the benefit seems to be significant only in long segment fusions.

Does a high BMI affect the outcome of minimally invasive TLIF? A retrospective study of 207 patients

PURPOSE

We investigated whether a high Body Mass Index (BMI) affects the outcomes following Minimally Invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar pathologies.

METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken to include patients operated between January 2016 and January 2020 with at least one-year follow-up. Various preoperative and demographic parameters were recorded and the patients were classified into normal, overweight and obese based on the BMI. The operative and outcome measures used for assessment were surgical time, blood loss, number of levels operated upon, skin incision length, day of independent mobilisation, total hospital stay including ICU stay, return to work and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Attainment of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the scores was calculated. Multivariate analyses were done to assess the effect of BMI on different parameters.

RESULTS

Blood loss and postoperative ICU stay were found to be higher in the obese patients. However, the other variables were comparable. VAS-BP, VAS-LP and ODI scores were significantly improved in all the patients with no inter-group variability. The MCID attainment was also similar. The satisfaction rating at 1-year and willingness for surgery again for similar disease was also similar. The overall complication rate was 14.9% and was comparable among the groups. Multivariate analyses revealed no significant association between BMI and various parameters.

CONCLUSION

In patients treated by MI-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spine pathology, BMI is not a factor that negatively affects the functional and clinical outcomes.

One Year Outcomes From a Prospective Multicenter Investigation Device Trial of a Novel Conformal Mesh Interbody Fusion Device

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective multicenter investigational device exempt trial is underway evaluating a novel conformable mesh interbody fusion device in subjects undergoing single-level fusion for degenerative disc disease. Patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were offered enrollment. There is no comparative group in this study.

OBJECTIVE

Establish the short and long-term safety and effectiveness of a novel conformable mesh interbody fusion device in subjects undergoing single-level fusion for degenerative disc disease unresponsive to conservative care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion remains a critical procedure for patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease. Increasingly minimally invasive techniques have been proposed to minimize muscle dissection and tissue damage with the goal of minimizing pain and length of stay.

METHODS

One hundred two subjects were enrolled across 10 sites. Ninety nine subjects remained available for follow-up at 12-months. Physical evaluations/imaging were performed serially through 12-months. Validated assessment tools included 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for function, and computerized tomography scan for fusion. Independent committees were used to identify adverse events and for assessment of radiographic fusion.

RESULTS

Reductions in low back pain (LBP)/leg pain and improvements in functional status occur early and are maintained through 12-month follow-up. Mean VAS-LBP change from baseline to 6-weeks post-op (-46 mm) continued to improve through 12 months (-51 mm). Similar trends were observed for leg pain. Mean ODI change from baseline to 6 weeks post-op (-17) was almost doubled by 12 months (-32). Fusion rates at 12-months are high (98%). No device-related serious adverse events have occurred.

CONCLUSION

12-month outcomes demonstrated excellent patient compliance and positive outcomes for pain, function, fusion, and device safety. Clinical improvements were observed by 6-weeks post-op and appear durable up to 1 year later. A novel mesh interbody device may provide an alternative means of interbody fusion that reduces connective tissue disruption.Level of Evidence: 3.

Two-year results of a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus silicon nitride spinal fusion cages in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders

Background

During lumbar spinal fusion, spacer cages are implanted to provide vertebral stability, restore sagittal alignment, and maintain disc and foraminal height. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used by most spine surgeons. Silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) is a less well-known alternative although it was first used as a spacer in lumbar fusion over 30 years ago. The present study was designed to see if Si₃N₄ cages would perform similarly to PEEK in a randomized controlled trial.

Methods

A non-inferiority multicenter 100-patient study was designed where both the observer and patient were blinded. Single- or double-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation using an oblique PEEK or Si₃N₄ cage was performed. The primary non-inferiority outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Secondary measures included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for back and leg pain, SF-36 Physical and Mental Function indices, patient and surgeon Likert scores on perceived recovery, and X-ray and CT radiological evaluations for subsidence, segmental motion, and fusion. Follow-up evaluations occurred at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

Results

After exclusions for protocol violations and canceled surgeries, 92 patients were randomized (i.e., 48 for PEEK and 44 for Si₃N₄). There were no differences in baseline demographics, pre-operative disabilities, or pain scores between the groups. Both treatment arms showed significant improvements in disability, pain, and recovery scores. No significant differences were observed for subsidence, segmental motion, or fusion. For the primary outcome (i.e., RMDQ scores), the non-inferiority of Si₃N₄ compared to PEEK could not be established using the original protocol criteria. However, the comparison was undermined by larger than anticipated patient fallout coupled with higher than expected RMDQ score standard deviations. A post hoc analysis coupled with a more extensive review of the literature was conducted which resulted in the selection of a revised clinically justified non-inferiority margin; and using this method, the non-inferiority of Si₃N₄ was affirmed.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the use of either PEEK or Si₃N₄ cages is safe and effective for patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion for chronic degenerative disc disease.

Modified Facet Joint Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Case Series of a Fusion Technique, Clinical Outcomes, and Fusion Rate in 491 Patients

BACKGROUND

Controversy still exists regarding the optimal fusion technique for the treatment of unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of modified facet joint fusion (MFF).

METHODS

A total of 491 patients with unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent MFF were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography was used to evaluate the fusion rate of MFF at 6- and 12-mo follow-up postoperatively. Clinical outcomes included visual analog scale pain scores for low back pain (VAS-LBP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), Japanese Orthopedic Association scores (JOA), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), all of which were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up times. The clinical outcomes were determined to be excellent, good, fair, or poor according to the MacNab classification at the last follow-up time.

RESULTS

Of the 491 patients, the fusion rates at the 6-mo and 1-yr follow-up were 56.8% and 96.1%, respectively. Between baseline and 1-yr follow-up time, VAS-LP and VAS-LBP improved from 5.6 ± 0.9 to 0.4 ± 0.5 and 5.1 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 0.9, respectively (P < .001). JOA improved from 9.0 ± 2.0 to 27.7 ± 1.0, and ODI decreased from 64.0 ± 2.0 to 19 ± 1.0 (P < .001). At the final evaluation, 93.6% patients showed excellent or good results, and 3.2% showed fair results. There were no MFF technique-related complications.

CONCLUSION

MFF technique achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes and fusion rate and appears to be a promising alternative fusion technique for the treatment of unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Computational comparison of bone cement and poly aryl-ether-ether-ketone spacer in single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a pilot study

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with a spacer and posterior instrument (PI) via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) restores intervertebral height in degenerated disks. To align with MIS, the spacer has to be shaped with a slim geometry. However, the thin spacer increases the subsidence and migration after PLIF. This study aimed to propose a new lumbar fusion approach using bone cement to achieve a larger supporting area than that achieved by the currently used poly aryl-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) spacer and assess the feasibility of this approach using a sawbone model. Furthermore, the mechanical responses, including the range of motion (ROM) and bone stress with the bone cement spacer were compared to those noted with the PEEK spacer by finite element (FE) simulation. An FE lumbar L3-L4 model with PEEK and bone cement spacers and PI was developed. Four fixing conditions were considered: intact lumbar L3-L4 segment, lumbar L3-L4 segment with PI, PEEK spacer plus PI, and bone cement spacer plus PI. Four kinds of 10-NM moments (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation) and two different bone qualities (normal and osteoporotic) were considered. The bone cement spacer yielded smaller ROMs in extension and rotation than the PEEK spacer, while the ROMs of the bone cement spacer in flexion and lateral bending were slightly greater than with the PEEK spacer. Compared with the PEEK spacer, peak contact pressure on the superior surface of L4 with the bone cement spacer in rotation decreased by 74% (from 8.68 to 2.25 MPa) and 69.1% (from 9.1 to 2.82 MPa), respectively, in the normal and osteoporotic bone. Use of bone cement as a spacer with PI is a potential approach to decrease the bone stress in lumbar fusion and warrants further research.

[Comparative study of microendoscope-assisted and conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases]

Objective

To analyze the medium and long-term effectiveness of microendoscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases in comparison with conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF.

Methods

Between November 2008 and March 2013, 53 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative diseases were enrolled. According to the different working channel performed, 28 patients were treated by microendoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF (observation group), while the remaining cases received conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF via Wiltse approach (control group). Preoperative baseline data, including age, gender, body mass index, disease etiology, operated level, the ration for requiring bilateral canal decompression, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) socre of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, showed no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative analgesic drug dose, postoperation in-bed time, and perioperative complication incidence were recorded respectively and compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation of interbody fusion was performed based on Bridwell grading system at 2 years after operation. VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, and ODI score were assessed before operation, at 2 years after operation, and at last follow-up respectively. Surgical outcome satisfaction was assessed by modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up.

Results

When compared with those in control group, both intraoperative blood loss and postoperative analgesic drug dose were significantly decreased in observation group ( P<0.05); similarly, the operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time were also significantly increased in observation group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference of postoperative in-bed time between the two groups ( t=-0.812, P=0.420). Both groups were followed up 6-10.3 years, with an average of 7.9 years. Regarding perioperative complication, its incidence was 14.3% and 20.0% in observation group and control group, respectively, showing no significant difference between both groups ( χ ²=0.306, P=0.580). Specifically, there were intraspinal hematoma formation in 1 case, incision infection in 1 case, urinary infection in 1 case, transient delirium in 1 case in observation group. By contrast, there were dural tear and cerebrospinal fluid leakage in 1 case, urinary infection in 1 case, pneumonia in 1 case, transient delirium in 2 cases in control group. Bridwell criterion was used to judge the intervertebral fusion at 2 years after operation, the fusion rates of observation group and control group were 92.9% and 92.0%, respectively, showing no significant difference ( χ ²=0.162, P=0.687). At both 2-year postoperatively and last follow-up, the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, and ODI score were significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.01), whereas no significant difference between the two groups at either time point was found ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the results of patients' satisfaction with surgery evaluated by modified MacNab criteria, and the excellent and good rates of the observation group and the control group were 96.4% and 92.0%, respectively, showing no significant difference ( χ ²=0.485, P=0.486).

Conclusion

The medium and long-term effectiveness of microendoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF are similar to those of conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases. The former operation has the additional advantages in terms of more clear surgical site visually, less intraoperative blood loss, and reduced postoperative analgesic dose, all of which seem more feasible to clinical teaching.

Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Lumbar Cortical Screws and Pedicle Screws in Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective

Lumbar cortical screw fixation (CSF), rather than pedicle screw fixation (PSF), has recently been attempted in lumbar interbody fusion. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability of lumbar CSF using a finite element (FE) model.

Methods

A 3-FE model, including the L1 to S1 levels, was designed to evaluate and compare the biomechanical stability of lumbar CSF and PSF in single-level lumbar interbody fusion at L4–5. Cortical or pedicle screws were inserted bilaterally, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) were modeled at L4–5, respectively. We compared the stability of CSF to that of PSF in these 2 different anatomic variations of PLIF, as well as in TLIF.

Results

Lumbar CSF showed less stability than PSF in PLIF when the midline posterior ligaments were not preserved, but demonstrated similar stability when the ligaments were preserved. The range of motion (ROM) at the treated level in CSF was larger than that observed for PSF, in all PLIF and TLIF models. Furthermore, the ROM in the posterior ligament-sacrificing PLIF with CSF model was larger than the ROM in the posterior ligament-preserving PLIF with CSF or PSF model.

Conclusion

Based on our FE analysis, the stability of CSF is comparable to that of PSF in PLIF and TLIF when the midline posterior ligaments are preserved.

Evidence Based Medicine Review of Posterior Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Technology

Background

Evaluate the current evidence in meta-analyses on posterior thoracolumbar minimally invasive surgery techniques and outcomes for degenerative conditions.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature from 1950 to 2015.

Results

The review of the literature yielded 34 meta-analysis studies evaluating posterior thoracolumbar minimally invasive techniques and outcomes for degenerative conditions. There were 11 studies included which investigated minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open posterior lumbar decompressions. There were 14 studies included which investigated MIS versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Finally, there were 9 studies focused on navigation techniques and radiation safety within MIS procedures.

Conclusions

There are 34 meta-analysis studies evaluating minimally invasive to open thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative disease. The studies show a trend toward decreased estimated blood loss, decreased length of stay, decreased complications, similar fusion rates, improved accuracy, and decreased radiation when minimally invasive techniques are used.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques

Recently, minimally invasive spine arthrodesis has gained popularity among spine surgeons. Minimally invasive techniques have advantages and disadvantages compared with traditional open techniques. Comparisons between short-term outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion and open transforaminal interbody fusion in terms of estimated blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital length of stay have been well documented and generally favor the minimally invasive technique. However, the advantages of minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion must be evaluated in the context of long-term results, such as patient-reported outcomes and the success of arthrodesis. Because the literature is equivocal in identifying the superior technique for successful long-term outcomes, more study is needed. Patient safety, the risk of complications, and the cost of these techniques also must be considered.

Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Provides Sustained Improvements in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes up to 5 Years Postoperatively in Patients with Neurogenic Symptoms Secondary to Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospective registry data.

PURPOSE

To determine 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level instrumented minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in patients with neurogenic symptoms secondary to spondylolisthesis.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

MIS-TLIF and open approaches have been shown to yield comparable outcomes. This is the first study to assess MIS-TLIF outcomes using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criterion.

METHODS

The outcomes of 56 patients treated by a single surgeon, including the Oswestry disability index (ODI), neurogenic symptom score, short-form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain (BP), and leg pain (LP), were collected prospectively for up to 5 years postoperatively. Radiological outcomes included adjacent segment degeneration, fusion, cage subsidence, and screw loosening rates.

RESULTS

Our patients were predominantly female (71.4%) and had a mean age of 53.7±11.3 years and mean body mass index of 25.7±3.7 kg/m². The mean operative time, blood loss, time to ambulation, and hospitalization were 167±49 minutes, 126±107 mL, 1.2±0.4 days, and 2.8±1.1 days, respectively. The mean fluoroscopic time was 58.4±33 seconds, and the mean postoperative intravenous morphine dose was 8±2 mg. Regarding outcomes, postoperative scores improved relative to preoperative scores, and this was sustained across various time points for up to 5 years (p<0.001). Improvements in ODI, SF-36, VAS-BP, and VAS-LP all met the MCID criterion. Notably, 5.4% of our patients developed clinically significant adjacent segment disease during follow-up, and 7 minor complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-level instrumented MIS-TLIF is suitable for patients with neurogenic symptoms secondary to lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with an acceptable complication rate. Both clinical and radiological outcomes were sustained up to 5 years postoperatively, with many patients achieving an MCID.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylosis: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar spondylosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) of TLIF and PLF for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Trials performed before November 2015 were retrieved from the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Chinese databases. Data extraction and quality evaluation of the trials were performed independently by 2 investigators. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA version 12.0.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and 5 OSs of 630 patients were included. Of these subjects, 325 were in the TLIF and 305 were in the PLF group. Results showed that TLIF did not increase the fusion rate based on RCTs (relative risk [RR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.18; P = 0.321), but increased it based on OSs (RR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.07-1.23; P = 0.000) and overall (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05-1.18; P = 0.001) as compared with PLF. TLIF was able to improve the clinical outcomes based on 1 RCT (RR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.11-1.59, P = 0.002) and overall (RR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.07-1.33; P = 0.001), but not based on OSs (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97-1.27; P = 0.129) as compared with PLF. There were no differences between TLIF and PLF in terms of visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation, complications, duration of surgical procedure, blood loss, and hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, evidence is not sufficient to support that TLIF provides higher fusion rate than PLF, and this poor evidence indicates that TLIF might improve only clinical outcomes. Higher quality, multicenter RCTs are needed to better define the role of TLIF and PLF.

Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

The aim of this study was to directly compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in three-level lumbar spinal stenosis. This retrospective study involved a total of 60 patients with three-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent MIS-TLIF or PLIF from January 2010 to February 2012. Back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scale were used to assess the pain, disability, and health status before surgery and postoperatively. In addition, the operating time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were also recorded. There were no significant differences in back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, SF-36, fusion condition, and complications at 12-month follow-up between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay were observed in MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Moreover, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS than those in PLIF group at 6-month follow-up (P < 0.05). Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF might be a prior option because of noninferior efficacy as well as merits of less blood loss and quicker recovery in treating three-level lumbar spinal stenosis.