Volume 2 | Issue 2 | October 2021-March 2022 | page: 65-70 | Hitesh N. Modi, Utsab Shrestha , Udit D. Patel
DOI: 10.13107/bbj.2022.v02i02.023
Authors: Hitesh N. Modi [1], Utsab Shrestha [1], Udit D. Patel [1]
[1] Department of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospitals and Healthcare Research Private Limited, Zydus hospital road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 380054.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Hitesh N. Modi,
Department of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospitals and healthcare Research Private Limited, Zydus hospital road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, India.
E-mail: drmodihitesh@gmail.com
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study is to analyze the clinical and radiological outcome of Minimally Invasive-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of stay (LOS) in the hospital, complication, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and parameters of sagittal spinal balance before and after surgery. The parameters of sagittal spinal balance included in this study were pelvic Incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis, focal lordosis at the index level.
Materials and Methods: All cases were retrospectively followed up. Single-level and double-level MIS-TLIF procedures for back pain and leg pain operated between 2015 and 2018 were included in the study. PI, Lumbar lordosis, Focal lordosis at index level was measured on preoperative, post-operative, and final follow-up lateral lumbosacral X-ray in the supine position. Demographic data, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, LOS, ODI score, and VAS score at different times were reviewed and analyzed.
Results: Fifty-four patients were included among them 24 were male and 30 were female. The average age of the patients was 51.6 ± 12.1 years. Sixteen double-level surgery and 38 single-level surgeries. The average value of follow-up was found to be 39.6 ± 12.4 months. The average value of operative time, the EBL and the LOS were 170.8 ± 19.8 min, 132.1 ± 34.8 mL, and 4.8 ± 0.8 days, respectively. The average PI was 54.9 ± 11.2° preoperatively, 55.0 ± 10.7° postoperatively and 54.8 ± 10.9° at the final follow-up. Pre-operative lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis were 44.55 ± 12.9° and 7.76 ± 5.2°, respectively with postoperatively and final follow-up to 48.88 ± 13.1° and 10.62 ± 5.1°, respectively. VAS score and ODI scales were improved significantly from preoperative 8.4 ± 0.9 and 56.3 ± 4.9, respectively, to postoperatively and final follow-up 2.0 ± 0.8 and 21.6 ± 5.4, respectively. The postoperative complications and revision occurred in 8 (14.8%) and 4 (7.4%) patients, respectively.
Conclusion: MIS-TLIF is a novel technique with the good radiological and clinical outcome with decreased perioperative morbidity. It is also superior to open TLIF in terms of EBL, hospital LOS, operative time, perioperative morbidity, and surgical complications.
Keywords: Minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, Clinical improvement, Pelvic incidence, Lumbar lordosis, Focal lordosis
References
1. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 2002;49:499-517.
2. Goldstein CL, Phillips FM, Rampersaud YR. Comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations of open versus minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41 Suppl 8:S74-89.
3. Guan J, Bisson EF, Dailey AT, Hood RS, Schmidt MH. Comparison of clinical outcomes in the national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:E416-21.
4. Lin Y, Chen W, Chen A, Li F. Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis of clinical results and safety outcomes. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2016;77:2-10.
5. Mehta VA, Amin A, Omeis I, Gokaslan ZL, Gottfried ON. Implications of spinopelvic alignment for the spine surgeon. Neurosurgery 2012;70:707-21.
6. Seng C, et al. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:2049-55.
7. Wong AP, Smith ZA, Stadler JA 3rd, Hu XY, Yan JZ, Li XF, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): Surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin North Am 2014;25:279-304.
8. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:2273-81.
9. Kim CH, Lee CH, Kim KP. How high are radiation-related risks in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with traditional open surgery? A meta-analysis and dose estimates of ionizing radiation. Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:52-9.
10. Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, Singh K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: One surgeon’s learning curve. Spine J 2014;14:1460-5.
11. Ng CL, Pang BC, Medina PJ, Tan KA, Dahshaini S, Liu LZ. The learning curve of lateral access lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population: A prospective study. Eur Spine J 2015;24 Suppl 3:361-8.
12. Park Y, Lee SB, Seok SO, Jo BW, Ha JW. Perioperative surgical complications and learning curve associated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single-institute experience. Clin Orthop Surg 2015;7:91-6.
13. Ryang YM, Villard J, Obermüller T, Friedrich B, Wolf P, Gempt J, et al. Learning curve of 3D fluoroscopy image-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J 2015;15:467-76.
14. Silva PS, Pereira P, Monteiro P, Silva PA, Vaz R. Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35:E7.
15. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 2016;24:416-27.
16. 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.
17. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H. Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord Technol 2005;18:40-7.
18. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024-9.
19. Hioki A, Miyamoto K, Kodama H, Hosoe H, Nishimoto H, Sakaeda H, et al. Two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease: Improved clinical outcome with restoration of lumbar lordosis. Spine J 2005;5:600-7.
20. Marty C, Boisaubert B, Descamps H, Montigny J, Hecquet J, Legaye J, et al. The sagittal anatomy of the sacrum among young adults, infants, and spondylolisthesis patients. Eur Spine J 2002;11:119-25.
21. Singh R, Yadav SK, Sood S, Yadav RK, Rohilla R, et al. Spino-pelvic radiological parameters in normal Indian population. SICOT J 2018;4:14.
22. Sudhir G, Acharya S, Kalra KL, Chahal R. Radiographic analysis of the sacropelvic parameters of the spine and their correlation in normal asymptomatic subjects. Glob Spine J 2016;6:169-75.
23. Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1741-9.
24. Hu W, Tang J, Wu X, Zhang L, Ke B. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: A systematic review of complications. Int Orthop 2016;40:1883-90.
25. Sulaiman WA, Singh M. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis grades 1-2: Patient-reported clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Ochsner J 2014;14:32-7.
26. 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. Eur Spine J 2010;19:1780-4.
27. 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 Neurosurg 2015;83:860-6.
28. Ahn J, Tabaraee E, Singh K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015;28:222-5.
29. Choi WS, Kim JS, Ryu KS, Hur JW, Seong JH. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 through a unilateral approach: Technical feasibility and outcomes. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:2518394.
30. Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, Mendoza N, O’Neill K, Van Dellen J, et al. Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: Is there a relationship to muscle retraction? Neurosurgery 2004;54:1413-20; discussion 1420.
31. Alamin TF, Kim MJ, Agarwal V, Provocative lumbar discography versus functional anesthetic discography: A comparison of the results of two different diagnostic techniques in 52 patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J 2011;11:756-65.
32. Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: Literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2019;14:229.
33. Jhala A, Singh D, Mistry M. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Results of 23 consecutive cases. Indian J Orthop 2014;48:562-7.
| How to Cite this Article: Modi HN, Shrestha U, Patel UD Clinical | and Radiological Outcome of Minimally Invasive- Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Single or Double-Level Involvement with Minimum 2-Year Follow-up | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | October 2021-March 2022; 2(2): 65-70.
|
.
