Trans–Pars Interarticularis Approach for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Efficient, Straightforward, and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis

Abstract

Background

Lumbar interbody fusion is a commonly applied surgical treatment for spondylolisthesis. For this procedure, various minimally invasive (MIS) approaches have been developed, including posterior lumbar interbody fusion, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion, and anterior lumbar interbody fusion. In this study, we characterized the features of an MIS trans–pars interarticularis lumbar interbody fusion (TPLIF) and compared its surgical outcomes with those of MIS-TLIF.

Methods

This study included 89 and 44 patients who had undergone MIS-TPLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively, between September 2016 and December 2022. The following clinical outcomes were analyzed: operative time, blood loss, and hospitalization duration.

Results

The average operative time, blood loss, and hospitalization duration for the MIS-TPLIF and MIS-TLIF groups were, respectively, 98.28 and 191.15 minutes, 41.97 and 101.85 mL, and 5.8 and 6.9 days.

Conclusion

The MIS-TPLIF approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis or other degenerative diseases involves the use of the commonly available and cost-effective instrument Taylor retractor, thus enabling posterior lumbar interbody fusion to be performed with minimal invasion. This approach also confers the benefits of a short learning curve and an intuitive approach. Our results suggest that although MIS-TPLIF is noninferior to MIS-TLIF, it is easier to learn and perform than MIS-TLIF.

Keywords

posterior lumbar interbody fusion - trans–pars interarticularis lumbar interbody fusion - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - spondylolisthesis - minimally invasive spine surgery

Publication History

Received: 27 January 2024

Accepted: 13 June 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 June 2024

Article published online:
14 October 2024

• References

• 1 Roy-Camille R. Current trends in surgery of the spine. Int Orthop 1989; 13 (02) 81-87
• 2 Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18 (05) 624-627
• 3 Harms JG, Jeszenszky D. Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler Technik. Oper Orthop Traumatol 1998; 10 (02) 90-102
• 4 Drury T, Ames SE, Costi K, Beynnon B, Hall J. Degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with neurogenic claudication effects functional performance and self-reported quality of life. Spine 2009; 34 (25) 2812-2817
• 5 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine 1994; 19 (22) 2598-2602
• 6 Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (06) 1683-1688
• 7 Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 1999; 24 (10) 1023-1028
• 8 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996; 21 (08) 941-944
• 9 Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20 (03) E6
• 10 Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009; 34 (13) 1385-1389
• 11 Ahn Y, Lee S, Kim WK, Lee SG. Learning curve for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2022; 31 (12) 3551-3559
• 12 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 (10) 1780-1784
• 13 Liu X, Wang Y, Qiu G, Weng X, Yu B. A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (01) 43-56
• 14 Zhao J, Hou T, Wang X, Ma S. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using one diagonal fusion cage with transpedicular screw/rod fixation. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (02) 173-177
• 15 Bingqian C, Feng X, Xiaowen S. et al. Modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a single cage with unilateral pedicle screws: a retrospective clinical study. J Orthop Surg Res 2015; 10: 98
• 16 Xue Y, Li S, Wang Y. et al. Unilateral modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with contralateral lamina fenestration treating severe lumbarspinal stenosis: a retrospective clinical study. Surg Innov 2023; 30 (01) 73-83
• 17 de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K. et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2017; 17 (11) 1712-1721
• 18 Wang Y, Zhang Y, Chong F, Zhou Y, Huang B. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via a novel tubular retractor. J Int Med Res 2020; 48 (05) 300060520920090
• 19 Fan Y, Zhou S, Xie T, Yu Z, Han X, Zhu L. Topping-off surgery vs posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 476