Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal 12/2013

01.12.2013 | Original Article

Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up

verfasst von: Javier Rodríguez-Vela, Antonio Lobo-Escolar, Eduardo Joven, Javier Muñoz-Marín, Antonio Herrera, José Velilla

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 12/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Supporters of minimally invasive approaches for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have reported short-term advantages associated with a reduced soft tissue trauma. Nevertheless, mid- and long-term outcomes and specifically those involving physical activities have not been adequately studied. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of mini-open versus classic open surgery for one-level TLIF, with an individualized evaluation of the variables used for the clinical assessment.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted of 41 individuals with degenerative disc disease who underwent a one-level TLIF from January 2007 to June 2008. Patients were randomized into two groups depending on the type of surgery performed: classic open (CL-TLIF) group and mini-open approach (MO-TLIF) group. The visual analog scale (VAS), North American Spine Society (NASS) Low Back Pain Outcome instrument, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) were used for clinical assessment in a minimum 3-year follow-up (36–54 months).

Results

Patients of the MO-TLIF group presented lower rates of lumbar (p = 0.194) and sciatic pain (p = 0.427) and performed better in daily life activities, especially in those requiring mild efforts: lifting slight weights (p = 0.081), standing (p = 0.097), carrying groceries (p = 0.033), walking (p = 0.069) and dressing (p = 0.074). Nevertheless, the global scores of the clinical questionnaires showed no statistical differences between the CL-TLIF and the MO-TLIF groups.

Conclusions

Despite an improved functional status of MO-TLIF patients in the short term, the clinical outcomes of mini-open TLIF at the 3- to 4-year follow-up showed no clinically relevant differences to those obtained with open TLIF.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1051624 PubMedCrossRef 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. doi:10.​1055/​s-2008-1051624 PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H (2009) 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 34:1923–1928. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e PubMedCrossRef Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H (2009) 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 34:1923–1928. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e3181a9d28e​ PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694–699. doi:10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09621 PubMedCrossRef Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694–699. doi:10.​3171/​2009.​12.​SPINE09621 PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) 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 24:479–484. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182055cac PubMed Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) 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 24:479–484. doi:10.​1097/​BSD.​0b013e3182055cac​ PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat 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–S6PubMedCrossRef 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–S6PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20:E6PubMedCrossRef Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20:E6PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z PubMedCrossRef 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. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-010-1404-z PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, Herrera A, Vicente J, Suñen E, Loste A, Tabuenca A (2009) Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18:1194–1201. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0 PubMedCrossRef Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, Herrera A, Vicente J, Suñen E, Loste A, Tabuenca A (2009) Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18:1194–1201. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-009-1010-0 PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) 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 9:560–565. doi:10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142 PubMedCrossRef Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) 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 9:560–565. doi:10.​3171/​SPI.​2008.​9.​08142 PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749PubMedCrossRef Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164PubMedCrossRef Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM (1995) The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc) 104:771–776 Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM (1995) The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc) 104:771–776
Metadaten
Titel
Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up
verfasst von
Javier Rodríguez-Vela
Antonio Lobo-Escolar
Eduardo Joven
Javier Muñoz-Marín
Antonio Herrera
José Velilla
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2013
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 12/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2853-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2013

European Spine Journal 12/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.