Percutaneous Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (pTLIF) with a Posterolateral Approach for the Treatment of Denegerative Disk Disease: Feasibility and Preliminary Results

Overview

Journal Int J Spine Surg

Date 2015 Oct 21

PMID 26484004

Citations 25

Authors

Rudolf Morgenstern

Christian Morgenstern

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Interbody fusion by open discectomy is the usual treatment for degenerative disk disease but requires a relatively long recovery period. The transforaminal posterolateral approach is a well-known standard in endoscopic spine surgery that allows direct access to the disk with progressive tissue dilation. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of percutaneous transforaminal interbody fusion (pTLIF) with insertion of an expandable or a standard rigid interbody implant for patients with degenerative disk disease with or without spondylolisthesis and for revision surgery.

Methods: Between 2009 and 2014, the pTLIF procedure was performed in 30 patients. Ten patients underwent insertion of a rigid implant (group A) and the remaining 20 underwent insertion of an expandable titanium interbody implant as the initial procedure (n = 10) (group B) or after failed back surgery (n = 10) (group C). Patient outcomes were scored with visual analogic scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified Macnab criteria.

Results: The mean follow-up period was 38 (17) (range 11 to 67) months. The outcome was excellent in 18, good in 10 and fair in 2. No poor results and no major complications were reported. No differences in VAS and ODI scores according to the study group were found. Median postoperative time until hospital discharge was 26 hours (20 to 68 hours). Postoperative values for VAS and ODI scores improved significantly (p<0.05) compared to preoperative data in all study groups.

Conclusions: These preliminary results have shown the feasibility and efficacy of the pTLIF procedure using a posterolateral approach for the treatment of degenerative disk disease with or without spondylolisthesis up to grade 2 and in revision surgery. No significant differences in outcome were observed between an expandable and a rigid cage. Median postoperative time until hospital discharge was faster compared to standard TLIF (26 hours vs. 9.3 days).

Citing Articles

Full-Percutaneous Trans-Kambin Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Large-Footprint Interbody Cage.

Morgenstern C, Morgenstern R Global Spine J. 2025; :21925682251318653.

PMID: 39921428 PMC: 11806452. DOI: 10.1177/21925682251318653.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) Versus Full-Endoscopic/Percutaneous TLIF With a Large-Footprint Interbody Cage: A Comparative Observational Study.

Morgenstern C, Nogueras F, Delbos G, Morgenstern R Global Spine J. 2025; :21925682251316280.

PMID: 39864958 PMC: 11770686. DOI: 10.1177/21925682251316280.

Less Is More: Evaluating the Benefits of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery.

Mohamed A, Alshaibi R, Faragalla S, Flynn G, Khan A, Sargent E Life (Basel). 2025; 15(1).

PMID: 39859948 PMC: 11767071. DOI: 10.3390/life15010008.

Percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion results in less perioperative opioid usage compared to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single institution, multi-surgeon retrospective study.

Shalita C, Wang T, Dibble C, Adams S, Nelli A, Sykes D J Spine Surg. 2024; 10(2):190-203.

PMID: 38974490 PMC: 11224795. DOI: 10.21037/jss-23-132.

Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Relvas-Silva M, Sousa Pinto B, Sousa A, Loureiro M, Pinho A, Pereira P EFORT Open Rev. 2024; 9(6):536-555.

PMID: 38828975 PMC: 11195334. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-23-0167.

References

Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Yeung A . The learning curve in foraminal endoscopic discectomy: experience needed to achieve a 90% success rate. SAS J. 2015; 1(3):100-7. PMC: 4365578. DOI: 10.1016/SASJ-2007-0005-RR. View

Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G . An extreme lateral access for the surgery of lumbar disc herniations inside the spinal canal using the full-endoscopic uniportal transforaminal approach-technique and prospective results of 463 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(22):2570-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000186327.21435.cc. View

Kim J, Jung B, Lee S . Instrumented Minimally Invasive Spinal-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF): Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up With Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes. Clin Spine Surg. 2012; 31(6):E302-E309. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31827415cd. View

Karikari I, Isaacs R . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(26 Suppl):S294-301. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc. View

Choi G, Lee S, Lokhande P, Kong B, Shim C, Jung B . Percutaneous endoscopic approach for highly migrated intracanal disc herniations by foraminoplastic technique using rigid working channel endoscope. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(15):E508-15. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817bfa1a. View

Kim T, Kang K, Yoon D, Shin H, Kim K, Yi S . Effects of lumbar arthrodesis on adjacent segments: differences between surgical techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(17):1456-62. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824da81d. View

Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Jane R, Lee S . Usefulness of an expandable interbody spacer for the treatment of foraminal stenosis in extremely collapsed disks: preliminary clinical experience with endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal approach. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 24(8):485-91. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182064614. View

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 Tech. 2005; 18(1):40-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000117542.88865.77. View

Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G . Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(9):931-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816c8af7. View

10.

Ahn Y, Lee S, Park W, Lee H . Posterolateral percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy for L5-S1 foraminal or lateral exit zone stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2003; 99(3 Suppl):320-3. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2003.99.3.0320. View

11.

Lee S, Kang B, Ahn Y, Choi G, Choi Y, Ahn K . Operative failure of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a radiologic analysis of 55 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(10):E285-90. DOI: 10.1097/01. brs.0000216446.13205.7a. View

12.

Hoogland T, van den Brekel-Dijkstra K, Schubert M, Miklitz B . Endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a prospective, cohort evaluation of 262 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(9):973-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816c8ade. View

13.

Macnab I . Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1971; 53(5):891-903. View

14.

Yeung A, Tsou P . Posterolateral endoscopic excision for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 307 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(7):722-31. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200204010-00009. View

15.

Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(17):1615-20. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3. View

16.

Powers C, Podichetty V, Isaacs R . Placement of percutaneous pedicle screws without imaging guidance. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 20(3):E3. DOI: 10.3171/foc.2006.20.3.4. View

17.

Copay A, Glassman S, Subach B, Berven S, Schuler T, Carreon L . Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008; 8(6):968-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006. View