scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via a novel tubular retractor

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052092009
Author(s):  
Yan Wang ◽  
Yaqing Zhang ◽  
Fanli Chong ◽  
Yue Zhou ◽  
Bo Huang
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fatty Infiltration ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Leakage ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Multifidus Muscle ◽  
Tubular Retractor ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Objective To assess the feasibility and clinical results of microscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) using a novel tapered tubular retractor that preserves the multifidus. Method A total of 122 patients underwent MIS-TLIF using a tapered tubular retractor system from March 2016 to August 2017. Perioperative parameters and follow-up outcomes were reviewed. Results The follow-up period was 23.95 ± 1.43 months. The operative time averaged 130.48 ± 34.44 minutes. The estimated blood loss was 114.10 ± 96.70 mL. The mean time until ambulation was 16.33 ± 6.29 hours. The average visual analogue scale (leg/waist) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (preoperative to last follow-up) improved from 4.93 ± 2.68/3.74 ± 2.28 to 0.34 ± 0.77/0.64 ± 0.74 and from 59.09% ± 22.34 to 17.04% ± 8.49, respectively. At the last follow-up, 98.36% of the patients achieved solid fusion. Cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in two cases. The asymptote of the surgeon’s learning curve occurred at the 25th case. There were no significant differences between the preoperative qualitative and quantitative analyses of multifidus muscle fatty infiltration and those at the final follow-up. Conclusion MIS-TLIF can be performed safely and effectively using this tapered tubular retractor system, which helps preserve the multifidus.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: An Analysis of Opioids, Nonopioid Analgesics, and Perioperative Characteristics

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 624-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Hockley ◽  
David Ge ◽  
Dennis Vasquez-Montes ◽  
Mohamed A. Moawad ◽  
Peter Gust Passias ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
History Of ◽  
Nonopioid Analgesics

Study Design: Retrospective study of consecutive patients at a single institution.Objective: Examine the effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery on long-term postoperative narcotic consumption. Objective: Examine the effect of minimally invasive versus open TLIF on short-term postoperative narcotic consumption. Methods: Differences between MIS and open TLIF, including inpatient opioid and nonopioid analgesic use, discharge opioid use, and postdischarge duration of narcotic usage were compared using appropriate statistical methods. Results: A total of 172 patients (109 open; 63 MIS) underwent primary TLIF. There was no difference in baseline characteristics. The MIS TLIF cohort had a significantly shorter operative time (223 vs 251 min, P = .006) and length of stay (2.7 vs 3.7 days, P < .001) as well as less estimated blood loss (184 vs 648 mL, P < .001). MIS TLIF had significantly less total inpatient opioid usage (167 vs 255 morphine milligram equivalent [MME], P = .006) and inpatient oxycodone usage (71 vs 105 mg, P = .049). Open TLIF cases required more ongoing opiate usage at 3-month follow-up (36% open vs 21% MIS, P = .041). A subanalysis found that patients who underwent an open TLIF with a history of preoperative opioid use are significantly more likely to remain on opioids at 6-week follow-up (87% vs 65%, P = .027), 3-month follow-up (63% vs 31%, P = .008), and 6-month follow-up (50% vs 21%, P = .018) compared with MIS TLIF. Conclusion: Patients undergoing MIS TLIF required less inpatient opioids and had a decreased incidence of opioid dependence at 3-month follow-up. Patients with preoperative opioid use undergoing MIS TLIF are less likely to require long-term opioids.

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

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 560-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Michael Y. Wang ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mini Open

Object As minimally invasive approaches gain popularity in spine surgery, clinical outcomes and effectiveness of mini–open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared with traditional open TLIF have yet to be established. The authors retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients who underwent mini–open TLIF with those who underwent open TLIF. Methods Between 2003 and 2006, 42 patients underwent TLIF for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis; 21 patients underwent mini–open TLIF and 21 patients underwent open TLIF. The mean age in each group was 53 years, and there was no statistically significant difference in age between the groups (p = 0.98). Data were collected perioperatively. In addition, complications, length of stay (LOS), fusion rate, and modified Prolo Scale (mPS) scores were recorded at routine intervals. Results No patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 24 months for the mini-open group and 34 months for the open group. The mean estimated blood loss was 194 ml for the mini-open group and 505 ml for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean LOS was 3 days for the mini-open group and 5.5 days for the open group (p < 0.01). The mean mPS score improved from 11 to 19 in the mini-open group and from 10 to 18 in the open group; there was no statistically significant difference in mPS score improvement between the groups (p = 0.19). In the mini-open group there were 2 cases of transient L-5 sensory loss, 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision, and 1 case of cage migration that required revision. In the open group there was 1 case of radiculitis as well as 1 case of a misplaced screw that required revision. One patient in the mini-open group developed a pseudarthrosis that required reoperation, and all patients in the open group exhibited fusion. Conclusions Mini–open TLIF is a viable alternative to traditional open TLIF with significantly reduced estimated blood loss and LOS. However, the authors found a higher incidence of hardware-associated complications with the mini–open TLIF.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation

2005 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jee-Soo Jang ◽  
Sang-Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Level Fusion ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The purpose of this study was to introduce a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique that involves ipsilateral pedicle screw (PS) and contralateral facet screw (FS) fixation. Methods. Eight men and 15 women (mean age 59.5 years, range 48–68) underwent the aforementioned TLIF procedure for degenerative spondylolisthesis and uni- or bilateral radiculopathy. Twenty-two patients underwent one-level fusion and one patient two-level fusion (L4—S1). In all cases the various procedures were undertaken via one small incision. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 310 ml, and the mean operative time was 150 minutes in cases of one-level fusion. The follow-up period ranged from 13 to 28 months (mean 19 months). The mean Numeric Rating Scale score reflected improvement-reductions from 7.5 (back pain) and 7.4 (leg pain) to 2.3 and 0.7, respectively (p < 0.0001). The mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores also reflected improved status (ODI of 33.1 before the surgery to 7.6 after the surgery; p < 0.0001). Examination indicated that 22 of 24 fusion sites exhibited osseous union. At the last follow-up examination, satisfactory outcomes were observed in 21 out of 23 patients. Conclusions. The TLIF with ipsilateral PS and contralateral FS fixation has the advantages over the conventional TLIF of reduced EBL and diminished soft-tissue injury.

303 Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study

Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 263-264
Author(s):  
Anthony Michael DiGiorgio ◽  
Gabriel Claudiu Tender
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Oral Antibiotic ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Abstract INTRODUCTION Symptomatic spondylolisthesis patients may benefit from surgical decompression and stabilization. The standard (S) technique is a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Newer, minimally invasive (MI) techniques seem to provide similar results with less morbidity. However, prospective studies comparing S versus MI TLIF are rare. METHODS Patients with at least 6 months of symptoms and image-confirmed low-grade spondylolisthesis were enrolled, at a single academic institution, between 2011 and 2015. The patients were randomized to either S or MI TLIF. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcome measures included length of operation, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and fusion rates at 1 year. Complications were also recorded. RESULTS >Forty patients were enrolled in each group. There was no crossover between groups. The age was 50.12 +/−11.09 years in the S TLIF group and 51.3 +/−9.36 years in the MI TLIF group. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss in the S versus MI TLIF group were 297 +/−101 versus 323 +/−85 minutes and 417 +/−211 versus 351 +/−198 ml, respectively. There were 4 transfusions in the S TLIF and 3 transfusions in the MI TLIF group. The patients were discharged after surgery at 4.12 +/−0.88 days for the S TLIF group and 1.92 +/−0.52 days for the MI TLIF group. The ODI improved from 37 +/−6 to 11 +/−6 in the S TLIF group (ODI difference: 26 +/−7) and from 38 +/−7 to 11 +/−6 in the MI TLIF group (ODI difference: 26 +/−8). In both groups, the fusion was considered solid (Grade I) in 36 (90%) and partial (Grade II) in 4 (10%) patients at 1 year. There were no reoperations for pseudarthrosis or any other postoperative complication. There were 2 superficial wound infections in the standard TLIF group, which resolved with oral antibiotic treatment alone. CONCLUSION The standard and minimally invasive TLIF in patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes at 1 year. The patients undergoing MI TLIF had a shorter hospital stay. Both surgical techniques yielded good results at 1 year.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up

2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. E16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Kevin T. Foley
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index Score ◽  
Forward Translation ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
The Mean

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is a relatively new surgical procedure that appears to minimize iatrogenic soft tissue and muscle injury. The authors describe a technique for MI-TLIF that permits the surgeon to reduce spondylolisthesis percutaneously. The results in 40 consecutive patients who underwent MI-TLIF for symptomatic spondylolisthesis utilizing this approach are reviewed. Thirty cases involved a degenerative spondylolisthesis while the remaining 10 were isthmic. The minimum follow-up was 24 months with a mean of 35 months. The mean preoperative Oswestry Disability Index score was 55, decreasing to a mean of 16 postoperatively. The mean leg and back pain visual analog scale scores were 65 and 52, respectively, improving to means of 8 and 15. Reduction of the spondylolisthesis was achieved in all cases, with a mean decrease in forward translation of 76%. The authors conclude that MI-TLIF for symptomatic spondylolisthesis appears to be an effective surgical option with results that compare favorably to open procedures.

scholarly journals Impact of local steroid application in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Junyoung Ahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Inpatient Stay ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Acute Postoperative Pain ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Patient Reported

OBJECTIVELocal epidural steroid application may be associated with decreased pain and narcotic use in the immediate postoperative period following lumbar discectomy. However, local steroid delivery following lumbar fusion procedures has not been well characterized. This study aims to characterize the effect of local intraoperative depomedrol application on perioperative and postoperative outcomes following a single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).METHODSA prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was performed. A priori power analysis determined that 86 patients were needed to detect a difference of 1 point in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score between groups. Ninety-three patients were randomized into depomedrol (DEPO) and no depomedrol (NODEPO) cohorts. Prior to surgical closure, DEPO patients received 1 ml depomedrol (80 mg) applied directly to the surgical site by using a Gelfoam carrier. NODEPO patients received 1 ml saline on the same Gelfoam carrier. Perioperative outcomes including acute postoperative pain and narcotic use were assessed for the duration of inpatient stay. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) questionnaires including VAS back and leg pain scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were administered preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up. Outcomes for DEPO and NODEPO cohorts were compared using linear regression controlled for sex.RESULTSOf the 93 patients, 45 (48.4%) were randomized to DEPO and 48 (51.6%) to NODEPO. A greater percentage of DEPO patients were female (53.3% vs 27.1%, p = 0.010). There were no other significant differences in patient baseline characteristics. Similarly, operating time, estimated blood loss, and length of inpatient stay did not differ between cohorts. Patients in the DEPO cohort consumed fewer hourly narcotics on postoperative day 0 (5.3 vs 6.3 oral morphine equivalents/hour, p = 0.034). However, no differences in acute postoperative pain or total narcotics consumption were observed between groups. Preoperative VAS leg scores were statistically different between cohorts (p = 0.027). However, preoperative ODI and VAS back scores did not differ between groups. Additionally, DEPO and NODEPO groups experienced similar improvements in PROs at all postoperative time points.CONCLUSIONSLocal depomedrol use did not lead to decreases in acute postoperative pain or narcotics consumption after MIS TLIF. Additionally, local depomedrol was not associated with postoperative improvements in PROs. The findings of this randomized trial suggest that surgical and clinical outcomes following MIS TLIF may not be impacted by intraoperative application of depomedrol.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03308084 (clinicaltrials.gov)

scholarly journals A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Decompression Alone for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Kai-Hong Chan ◽  
Erica F Bisson ◽  
Mohamad Bydon ◽  
Steven D Glassman ◽  
Kevin T Foley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract INTRODUCTION The optimal minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. This study compares patient reported outcomes (PRO) following MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 608 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis of whom 143 underwent MIS [72 MI-TLIF (50.3%) and 71 MIS decompressions (49.7%)]. Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse-plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MI-TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). In total, 24-mo follow-up parameters were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) Back Pain, NRS Leg Pain, EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire, and North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Questionnaire. Multivariate models were constructed adjusting for baseline patient and surgical factors. RESULTS The mean age of the MIS cohort was 67.1 ± 11.3 yr (MI-TLIF 62.1 yr vs MIS decompression 72.3 yr) and consisted of 79 (55.2%) women (MI-TLIF 55.6% vs MIS decompression 54.9%). The proportions reaching 24-mo follow-up were similar (MI-TLIF 83.3% and MIS decompression 84.5%; P = .85). MI-TLIF was associated with higher blood loss (108.8 vs 33.0 mL, P < .001), longer operative times (228.2 vs 101.8 min, P < .001) and length of hospitalization (2.9 vs 0.7 d, P < .001). MI-TLIF was associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate (14.1% vs 1.4%, P = .004). Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, and EQ-5D at 24 mo (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with superior ODI change (ß = −7.59; 95% CI [−14.96 to −0.23]; P = .04), NRS back pain change (ß = −1.54; 95% CI [−2.78 to −0.30]; P = .02), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 0.32; 95% CI [0.12-0.82]; P = .02). CONCLUSION For symptomatic, single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with a 10-fold lower reoperation rate and superior outcomes for disability, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared to MIS decompression alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document