Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The aim of the present prospective study is to evaluate whether the touted advantages of minimal invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) translate into superior, equal, or inferior outcomes as compared to open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF). This is the first study from the Indian subcontinent prospectively comparing the outcomes of MI-TLIF and O-TLIF.

Materials and Methods: All consecutive cases of open and MI-TLIF were prospectively followed up. Single-level TLIF procedures for spondylolytic and degenerative conditions (degenerative spondylolisthesis, central disc herniations) operated between January 2011 and January 2013 were included. The pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, length of hospital stay, operative time, radiation exposure, quantitative C-reactive protein (QCRP), and blood loss were compared between the two groups. The parameters were statistically analyzed (using IBM® SPSS® Statistics version 17).

Results: 129 patients underwent TLIF procedure during the study period of which, 71 patients (46 MI-TLIF and 25 O-TLIF) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, a further 10 patients were excluded on account of insufficient data and/or no followup. The mean followup was 36.5 months (range 18–54 months). The duration of hospital stay (O-TLIF 5.84 days + 2.249, MI-TLIF 4.11 days + 1.8, P < 0.05) was shorter in MI-TLIF cases. There was less blood loss (open 358.8 ml, Ml 111.81 ml, P < 0.05) in MI-TLIF cases. The operative time (O-TLIF 2.96 h + 0.57, MI-TLIF 3.40 h + 0.54, P < 0.05) was longer in Ml group. On an average, 57.77 fluoroscopic exposures were required in MI-TLIF which was significantly higherthan in O-TLIF (8.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the improvement in ODI and VAS scores in MI-TLIF and O-TLIF groups. The change in QCRP values preoperative and postoperative was significantly lower (P < 0.000) in MI-TLIF group than in O-TLIF group, indicating lesser tissue trauma.

Conclusion: The results in MI TLIF are comparable with O-TLIF in terms of outcomes. The advantages of MI-TLIF are lesser blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lesser tissue trauma, and early mobilization. The challenges of MI-TLIF lie in the steep learning curve and significant radiation exposure. The ultimate success of TLIF lies in the execution of the procedure, and in this respect the ability to achieve similar results using a minimally invasive technique makes MI-TLIF an attractive alternative.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D. The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 1998; 6:88–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 2007; 604 Suppl 2:203–12.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1023–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M, et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:568–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljarvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:575–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Styf JR, Willen J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:354–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:941–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994; 19:2598–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, Mooney V, Barnes D, Judge L, et al. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:33–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Silva PS, Pereira P, Monteiro P, Silva PA, Vaz R. Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgical Focus 2013; 35:E7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1548–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1683–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. European Spine J 2010;19:1780–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive trans-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion. European Spine J 2012;21:2265–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL, Wang LX. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST quadrant retractor versus open surgery: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124:3868–74.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dhal SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long term followup. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 9:560–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. 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 2011;24:479–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disorders Tech 2014;27:202–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Elias WJ, Simmons NE, Kaptain GJ, Chadduck JB, Whitehill R. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. J Neurosurgery 2000; 93 1 Suppl: 45–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Arai Y, Takahashi M, Kurosawa H, Shitoto K. Comparative study of iliac bone graft and carbon cage with local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2002;10:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L. Anterior/ posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disorders 2001;14:533–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB, Wang JC. Single-level lumbar spine fusion: A comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disorders Tech 2002; 15:355–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Whitecloud TS 3rd, Roesch WW, Ricciardi JE. Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: A financial analysis. J Spinal Disorders 2001; 14:100–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin DA, Kim KN, Shin HC, Yoon DH. The efficacy of microendoscopic discectomy in reducing iatrogenic muscle injury. J Neurosurgery Spine 2008; 8:39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kotil K, Tunckale T, Tatar Z, Koldas M, Kural A, Bilge T. Serum creatine phosphokinase activity and histological changes in the multifidus muscle: A prospective randomized controlled comparative study of discectomy with or without retraction. J Neurosurgery Spine 2007;6:121–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mumbai Spine Scoliosis and Disc Replacement Centre, New Marine Lines, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, 400 020, Maharashtra, India

    Arvind G. Kulkarni, Hussain Bohra, Abhilash Dhruv, Abhishek Sarraf, Anupreet Bassi & Vishwanath M. Patil

Authors
  1. Arvind G. Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hussain Bohra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abhilash Dhruv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abhishek Sarraf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anupreet Bassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vishwanath M. Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arvind G. Kulkarni.

Additional information

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kulkarni, A.G., Bohra, H., Dhruv, A. et al. Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. IJOO 50, 464–472 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.189607

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.189607

Key words

MeSH terms

Search

Navigation