» Articles » PMID: 31068542

Time Course Observation of Outcomes Between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Overview
Specialties Neurology
Neurosurgery
Date 2019 May 10
PMID 31068542
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the long-term patient-outcomes, spinal fusion, and incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (O-PLIF). We retrospectively reviewed 70 consecutive cases who underwent single-level MIS-TLIF or O-PLIF from March 2010 to July 2013. All the patients achieved a minimum of 5-year follow-up. Data collected for each patient included demographic data, perioperative data, and complications. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale (VAS). Radiological outcomes included fusion rate and ASD. About 34 patients of MIS-TLIF and 36 patients of O-PLIF were enrolled. Higher Charlson comorbidity index scores were noted in MIS-TLIF than in O-PLIF. Blood loss was significantly lower in MIS-TLIF than O-PLIF. There were significant improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes in both groups. At 6 months, in MIS-TLIF group had significantly lower VAS for back pain and disc height compared with in O-PLIF group. The fusion rate was similar between the two groups at 5-year follow-up. Although the total complication rates were similar between the two groups, both the incidence of ASD was significantly higher in O-PLIF group than MIS-TLIF group (P = 0.032). In conclusion, this study indicates that MIS-TLIF is comparable to O-PLIF in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes in single-segment degenerative lumbar diseases. In addition, compared with O-PLIF, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of lesser blood loss, faster recovery, and lower incidence of ASD.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine.

Corso K, Teferra A, Michielli A, Corrado K, Marcini A, Lotito M Med Devices (Auckl). 2025; 18():37-51.

PMID: 39835282 PMC: 11745063. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S493988.


Bibliometric analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: research status, trends, and future directions.

Wang X, Zhang A, Yao W, Qiu H, Feng F EFORT Open Rev. 2023; 8(12):906-918.

PMID: 38038386 PMC: 10714383. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-23-0155.


Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

He L, Li J, Wu H, Chang Q, Guan X, Ma Z Front Surg. 2022; 9:915522.

PMID: 35693306 PMC: 9174668. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.915522.


Comparison of Outcomes of Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Full-endoscopic Laminectomy for L5 Radiculopathy Caused by Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis.

Fujita M, Inui T, Oshima Y, Iwai H, Inanami H, Koga H Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2022; 62(6):270-277.

PMID: 35545503 PMC: 9259084. DOI: 10.2176/jns-nmc.2021-0381.


Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases.

He L, Chen K, Chen C, Chang Q, Sun L, Zhang Y BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):329.

PMID: 35392878 PMC: 8988416. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05287-9.


References
1.
Humphreys S, Hodges S, Patwardhan A, Eck J, Murphy R, Covington L . Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(5):567-71. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023. View

2.
Madan S, Boeree N . Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(14):1536-42. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200207150-00011. View

3.
Park P, Garton H, Gala V, Hoff J, McGillicuddy J . Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(17):1938-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03. View

4.
Hilibrand A, Robbins M . Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion?. Spine J. 2004; 4(6 Suppl):190S-194S. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.007. View

5.
Schwender J, Holly L, Rouben D, Foley K . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18 Suppl:S1-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0. View