Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2013; 74(03): 131-135
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1330956
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison between Open and Mini-Open Approaches with Two Years Follow-Up

F. Zairi
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
,
A. Arikat
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
,
M. Allaoui
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
,
R. Assaker
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

02 April 2011

17 November 2011

Publication Date:
10 January 2013 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an efficient technique which can achieve a fusion rate of up to 90%. Minimally invasive approaches have become increasingly popular because they appear to minimize iatrogenic soft tissue and muscle injury. As minimally invasive TLIF gains popularity, its effectiveness compared with open TLIF has yet to be established.

Objective A retrospective study was performed with the aim to compare long-term outcomes of patients who underwent mini-open TLIF with those who underwent open TLIF.

Methods This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Between 2005 and 2008, 100 patients underwent TLIF for low-grade spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease; 60 underwent open TLIF and 40 underwent mini-open TLIF. The mean age in each group was 48 years, and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Data were collected perioperatively. Pain and functional disability were measured using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. In addition, the fusion was evaluated at 1 year on a computerized tomography (CT) scan.

Results The mean VAS improved from 7.3 to 3.8 for back pain and from 7 to 2.7 for leg pain and the ODI decreased from 60 to 30% at 2 years postoperatively. The fusion rate at 1 year was 98%. There were no statistical differences for the clinical and radiological outcomes between the groups. The mean operative time was 186 minutes in the open group and 170 minutes in the mini-open group (p < 0.05) and the mean blood loss was 486 mL in the open group and 148 mL in the mini-open group (p < 0.01).

Conclusion The mini-open TLIF for symptomatic low-grade spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease is an effective option that achieves the same clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up and reduces perioperative morbidity.

Keywords

minimal invasive spine surgery - spinal fusion - TLIF - outcome
 

  • References

  • 1 Harms JG, Jeszenszky D. The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 1998; 6: 88-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery 2001; 48 (3) 569-574 , discussion 574–575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA. Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 2002; 49: 499-517
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (15, Suppl) S26-S35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20 (3) E6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, Nelson WE. The paraspinal sacrospinalis-splitting approach to the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1968; 50 (5) 919-926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66 (8) 271-273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery 2004; 54 (2) 368-374 , discussion 374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mummaneni PV, Rodts Jr GE. The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (4, Suppl) 256-261 , discussion 256–261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996; 21 (8) 941-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H. Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine 2009; 34 (18) 1923-1928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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 (5) 537-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. 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. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 9 (6) 560-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar