Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disorders: Mini-open TLIF and Corrective TLIF

The Effect of Indirect Decompression Through Extraforaminal Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease

Purpose

Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as with other methods that involve the mechanism of indirect decompression, the discussion not only focuses on the benefit of minimizing the risk of thecal sac injury and postoperative scarring, but also on the risk of insufficient decompression in the affected neural structures during the reduction of the affected segment.

Methods

Eighty-two patients presenting with degenerative lumbar disease with segmental instability underwent ELIF combined with transpedicular fixation and circumferential fusion. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed.

Results

The mean ODI significantly improved from 63.4 preoperatively to 32.3 1 year postoperatively. The mean VAS back pain significantly improved from 5.95 to 2.63 postoperatively and VAS (leg pain) improved from 6.04 to 2.44. The mean CSA increased from 103  mm2 preoperatively to 169  mm2 postoperatively. The median extension ratio of CSA was 33%. Disc height, segmental disc angle, and lumbar lordosis also improved significantly. Only three (3.7%) patients were revised using direct central decompression due to neurologic deterioration.

Conclusion

Spinal stenosis was resolved successfully by indirect decompression through extraforaminal interbody fusion via a transmuscular limited approach.

The challenge of measuring spinopelvic parameters: inter-rater reliability before and after minimally invasive lumbar spondylodesis

BACKGROUND

The common manual measurement technique of spinal sagittal alignment on X-rays is susceptible to rater-dependent variability, which has not been adequately considered in previous publications. This study investigates the effect of those variations in the characterization of patients receiving lumbar spondylodesis.

METHODS

General alignment parameters on pre- and postoperative X-rays were evaluated by four raters in 43 prospectively sampled patients undergoing monolevel spondylodesis. The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for each rater pair and all raters together was calculated for inter-rater reliability. For the operation-induced change of the sagittal alignment in every patient the Wilcoxon test was applied to compare for each rater separately.

RESULTS

The ICCs were "good" (>0.75) to "excellent" (>0.9) for all raters together and for 45 of the 48 single rater pairs (93.75%). All revealed a significant increase of the addressed segmental lordosis and disc height and no significant change for spinopelvic parameters and sagittal vertical axis from pre- to postoperative. The lumbar lordosis showed a significant increase through the operation of +2.5° (p = 0.014) and +3.7° (p = 0.015) in two raters and no difference for the other ones (+2.1°, p = 0.171; -2.2°, p = 0.522).

CONCLUSIONS

The pre- to postoperative change of lumbar lordosis revealed different significance levels for different raters, although the ICCs were formally good. Accordingly, the evaluation by only one rater would lead to different conclusions. Due to this susceptibility of alignment measurements to rater-dependent variability, the exact evaluation process should be described in every publication and the consistency of significant results be validated through multiple raters.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

The trial was approved by the local ethics committee and listed at the national clinical trials register ( DRKS00004514 , date of registration: 08/11/2012).

Distinct fusion intersegmental parameters regarding local sagittal balance provide similar clinical outcomes: a comparative study of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background

Most contemporary studies suggested that intersegmental parameters including disc height and local lordosis contribute to the sagittal balance of fused lumbar. Although similar clinical outcomes following MIS- and Open-TLIF were reported essentially at the early postoperative time, the comparison of local balance variables after these two different techniques was lack. The radiological differences maybe not relevant to the postoperative efficacy at an earlier post-operation stage. But during the long-term follow-up, the complications with regards to the sagittal imbalance might occur due to the distinct biomechanical properties of fusion level after MIS- and Open-TLIF.

Methods

The patients who underwent a single-level MIS- and Open-TLIF were reviewed retrospectively. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of the fusion segment were measured using recognition technical fluoroscopy. The mean disc height (MDH) was calculated by (ADH + PDH)/2. The relative DH was normalized by the anterior height of the upper vertebrae. The body mass index (BMI), the pain score of low back and leg visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), estimated blood loss, and hospital stay length was collected.

Results

A total of 88 patients undergoing a single-level TLIF (MIS and Open) were included. The pre- and post-operative ADH, PDH, MDH, and SL of MIS-TLIF group were 1.57 ± 0.33 cm, 0.79 ± 0.20 cm, 1.18 ± 0.21 cm, 7.36 ± 3.07 and 1.63 ± 0.30 cm, 1.02 ± 0.28 cm, 1.32 ± 0.24 cm, 10.24 ± 4.79 respectively. Whereas, the pre- and post-operative ADH, PDH, MDH, and SL of Open-TLIF group were 1.61 ± 0.40 cm, 0.77 ± 0.21 cm, 1.19 ± 0.24 cm, 9.05 ± 5.48 and 1.81 ± 0.33 cm, 0.98 ± 0.24 cm, 1.39 ± 0.24 cm, 12.34 ± 4,74 respectively. MIS- and Open-TLIF group showed no significant differences in low back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI both in pre-operation and post-operation (P > 0.05). The estimated blood loss and hospital stay length in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the Open-TLIF group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

MIS- and Open-TLIF provided similar clinical outcomes as the respect of low back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI. MIS-TLIF significantly reduced the blood loss and length of hospital stay though. The intervertebral parameters of DH and SL were both increased significantly, Open-TLIF group presented better sagittal balance in term of ADH and SL variables. The contrast investigation of intersegmental parameters may help the surgeons to figure out the further advantages of MIS-TLIF technique, and then better manage the rehabilitation and prevent the reoperation.

Can Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Create Lordosis from a Posterior Approach?

The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-established 3-column fusion technique that can be used to manage lumbar stenosis, instability, and deformity. Having been in use for more than 20 years, it has evolved into many different renditions. This includes protocols using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches. To avoid the development of flatback syndrome, it is important that a TLIF procedural technique is capable of reproducibly restoring lordosis. This article describes one of many MIS TLIF protocols and presents some of its previously published outcomes.

Current Status of Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Instrumented lumbar fusion can provide immediate stability and assist in satisfactory arthrodesis in patients who have pain or instability of the lumbar spine. Lumbar adjunctive fusion with decompression is often a good procedure for surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Among various lumbar fusion techniques, lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) has an advantage in that it maintains favorable lumbar alignment and provides successful fusion with the added effect of indirect decompression. This technique has been widely used and represents an advancement in spinal instrumentation, although the rationale and optimal type of LIF for DS remains controversial. We evaluated the current status and role of LIF in DS treatment, mainly as a means to augment instrumentation. We addressed the basic concept of LIF, its indications, and various types including minimally invasive techniques. It also has acceptable biomechanical features, and offers reconstruction with ideal lumbar alignment. Postsurgical adverse events related to each LIF technique are also addressed.