Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2010; 53(1): 21-24
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1247560
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Minimally Invasive Approach versus Traditional Open Approach for One Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

V. Ntoukas1 , A. Müller1
  • 1Department of Neurosurgery, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder, Regensburg, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 April 2010 (online)


Objective: While over the last ten years minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has been acknowledged to (i) reduce approach-related morbidity associated with quicker recovery, (ii) require a shorter hospital stay and (iii) deliver similar clinical outcomes when compared to a traditional approach, it is still not the current gold standard. In order to demonstrate the efficacy of the minimally invasive lumbar PLIF approach, a retrospective study was conducted comparing both approaches.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with 40 patients treated for one level, degenerative lumbar instability. 20 patients received lumbar PLIF though a standard open approach, while another 20 underwent a minimally invasive approach using the “SpiRIT”-system. Spinal pathological features, stabilized segments, number of implanted pedicle screws, surgical time, radiation time, blood loss, complications, radiographic images and standardized patient questionnaires (VAS, ODI) were evaluated. The follow-up period was one year.

Results: One year after the performed surgery, we found no significant difference between the two groups with regard to clinical and radiographic outcome. However, in the minimally invasive group we noticed less blood loss, less postoperative pain, a shorter recovery time and a shorter hospital stay. Despite these benefits, the minimally invasive group also experienced a longer surgical and radiation time as compared to the “open” group.

Conclusions: This study confirmed the results of previous studies which advocated the advantages of less blood loss, less postoperative pain, quicker recovery and shorter duration of hospitalization. However, in the long run, one year after surgery, both groups showed no significant difference with regards to clinical and radiographic outcome. Therefore long-term controlled studies are necessary to validate the role of the minimally invasive PLIF in degenerative lumbar instability.


  • 1 Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y. et al . Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery.  Spine. 1999;  24 1023-1028
  • 2 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery: a histologic and enzymatic analysis.  Spine. 1996;  21 941-944
  • 3 Ringel F, Stoffel M, Stüer C. et al . Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine.  Neurosurgery. 2006;  59 361-367
  • 4 Park Y, Ha JW. Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach.  Spine. 2007;  32 537-543
  • 5 Müller A, Gall C, März U. et al . A keyhole approach for endoscopically assisted pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spine instability.  Neurosurgery. 2000;  47 85-96
  • 6 Vaccaro AR, Garfin SR. Internal fixation (pedicle screw fixation) for fusions of the lumbar spine.  Spine. 1995;  20 157-165
  • 7 Khoo LT, Palmer S, Laich. et al . Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion.  Neurosurgery. 2002;  51 (Suppl) 166-161
  • 8 Heini PF, Gahrich U, Orler R. The external fixator: A tool for evaluation of complex low back pain problems.  J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;  17 8-14
  • 9 Foley KT, Gupta SK, R Justis JR. et al . Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine.  Neurosurg Focus. 2001;  10 1-9
  • 10 Lowery GL, Kulkarni SS. Posterior percutaneous spine instrumentation.  Eur Spine J. 2000;  9 (S 01) 126-130
  • 11 Mathews HH, Long BH. Endoscopy assisted percutaneous anterior interbody fusion with subcutaneous suprafascial internal fixation: evolution of technique and surgical considerations.  Orthop Int Ed. 1995;  3 496-500
  • 12 Fessler RG, Guiot BH, Khoo LT. A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine.  Spine. 2002;  27 432-438
  • 13 Foley KT, Smith MM. Microendoscopic discectomy.  Tech Neurosurg. 1997;  3 301-307
  • 14 Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results.  J Neurosurg. 2002;  97 7-12
  • 15 Foley KT, Lefkwitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery.  Clin Neurosurg. 2002;  49 499-517
  • 16 Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion.  Spine. 2003;  28 (Suppl) 26-35
  • 17 Larry TK, Sylvain P, Daniel TL. et al . Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion.  Neurosurgery. 2002;  5 166-181
  • 18 Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability.  Neurosurgery. 2007;  60 (4 Suppl 2) 203-212
  • 19 Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E. et al . Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience.  Int Orthop. 2009;  33 1683-1688
  • 20 Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw.  Eur Spine J. 2009;  18 430-434


V. Ntoukas


Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen


Prüfeningerstraße 86

93049 Regensburg


Phone: +49/179/940 7784

Fax: +49/179/940 7784