Clinical and functional outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in single segment lumbar spinal disease: a prospective observational study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20250976Keywords:
Fusion, Minimally invasive spine, MIS-TLIF, TransforaminalAbstract
Background: Low back pain is the most common cause of work-related disability, which can be commonly caused by lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar instability, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Generally, treated conservatively, requiring surgical intervention when the effect of non-surgical management is poor or when symptoms of severe nerve damage occur. In the past decade, mainstream spinal surgery has been open surgery. Many studies have reported that minimally invasive TLIF provides equal or better results compared to open surgery. However there is very limited research on their clinical and functional outcome which is assessed in this study.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care hospital for one year. Patients who underwent MIS TLIF were assessed for clinical and functional outcome with ODI and VAS score pre operative and post operative at one year. Blood loss and surgical duration was also calculated. Patients aged 20-55 with lower back pain and /or neurogenic deficit that originated from single level lumbar degenerative disease were included. Those with new or old spinal fractures, previous spinal surgery and patients with medical condition requiring intensive medical therapy were excluded.
Results: The mean pre-operative VAS score was 7.64±0.95, which significantly decreased to 2.28±0.89 post-operatively, with a p-value of 0.000, indicating a statistically significant reduction in pain levels. Similarly, mean pre-operative ODI was 68.72±6.63, which decreased to 19.3.0±2.82 post-operatively, with a p value of 0.000, demonstrating significant improvement.
Conclusions: Our results suggest that MIS TLIF procedure has good clinical and functional outcome (p value <0.05) in terms of ODI and VAS Score and thus can be considered an ideal advancement in surgical procedure.
Metrics
References
Kou Y, Chang J, Guan X, Chang Q, Feng H. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021;152:e352-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.05.109
Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. The Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X
Zhang Q, Wei Y, Wen L, Tan C, Li X, Li B. An overview of lumbar anatomy with an emphasis on unilateral biportal endoscopic techniques: A review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(48):e31809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000031809
Herkowitz HN, Sidhu KS. Lumbar spine fusion in the treatment of degenerative conditions: current indications and recommendations. J Am Acad Orth Surg. 1995;3:123-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-199505000-00002
Cloward RB. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion up- dated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(193):16-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198503000-00003
Lawton CD, Smith ZA, Barnawi A, Fessler RG. The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Sci. 2011;55(3):259-64.
Berjano P, Gautschi OP, Schils F, Tessitore E. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(R)): how I do it. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015;157:547-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-014-2248-9
Zhang Q, Yuan Z, Zhou M, Liu H, Xu Y, Ren Y. A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2014;15:1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-367
Okuda SY, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A, Aono H, Morita M, Yamamoto T. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine. 2004;29(14):1535-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000131417.93637.9D
Brodke DS, Dick JC, Kunz DN, McCabe R, Zdeblick TA. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical comparison, including a new threaded cage. Spine. 1997;22(1):26-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199701010-00005
Miyakoshi N, Abe E, Shimada Y, Okuyama K, Suzuki T, Sato K. Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to the fusion. Spine. 2000;25(14):1837-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200007150-00016
Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001;26(5):567-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023
Ringel F, Stoffel M, Stüer C, Meyer B. Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosur. 2006;59(4 Suppl 2):ONS361-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000223505.07815.74
14. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. Journal of Spinal Disorder and Techmiques 2005;18 Suppl:S1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0
Park J, Ham DW, Kwon BT, Park SM, Kim HJ, Yeom JS. Minimally invasive spine surgery: techniques, technologies, and indications. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(5):694-701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0384
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(13):1385-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be
Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosur. 2007;60(4 Suppl 2):203-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000255388.03088.B7
Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Internat Orthoped. 2009;33(6):1683-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0687-8
Chang HK, Huang M, Wu JC, Huang WC, Wang MY. Less opioid consumption with enhanced recovery after surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a comparison to standard minimally- invasive TLIF. Neurospine. 2020;17(1):228-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938422.211
Park P, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25(2):E16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/FOC/2008/25/8/E16
Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY. The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2011;11(3):205-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.023
Jenkins NW, Parrish JM, Hrynewycz NM, Brundage TS, Singh K. Longitudinal evaluation of patient- reported outcomes measurement information system for back and leg pain in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurospine. 2020;17(4):862. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.1938398.199
Roh YH, Lee JC, Hwang J, Cho HK, Soh J, Choi SW, et al. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 10-year follow-up results. J Kor Medi Sci. 2022;37(13):e105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e105
Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 1953;10:154-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154
Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Gerszten PC, Moossy JJ, Kanter AS, et al. Perioperative surgical complications of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center experience. J Neurosurg. 2012;16(1):44-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.9.SPINE11373
Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg. 2002;49:499-517.
Adogwa O, Carr K, Thompson P, Hoang K, Darlington T, Perez E, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes?. World neurosurgery. 2015;83(5):860-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.12.034
Lener S, Wipplinger C, Hernandez RN, Hussain I, Kirnaz S, Navarro-Ramirez R, et al. Defining the MIS-TLIF: a systematic review of techniques and technologies used by surgeons worldwide. Glob Spine J. 2020;10(2_suppl):151S-67S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568219882346
Tsahtsarlis A, Wood M. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease. Europ Spine J. 2012;21:2300-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2376-y
Abd Razak HR, Dhoke P, Tay KS, Yeo W, Yue WM. 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. Asian Spine J. 2017;11(2):204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2017.11.2.204
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
