Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Overview

Journal Front Surg

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2022 Jul 5

PMID 35784932

Authors

Lu Lin

Xiao-Qin Liu

Lei Shi

Si Cheng

Zhi-Qiang Wang

Qi-Jun Ge

Ding-Zhi Gao

Amadou Cheffou Ismail

Zhen-Yong Ke

Lei Chu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods: We reviewed a total of 89 patients undergoing single-level surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2018 to July 2021. The cases were categorized as PE-LIF (Group PE-LIF, 41 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS-TLIF, 48 cases) approach. Parameters obtained at baseline through at least six months of follow-up were collected. The surgical outcomes involving the operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative bed staying time, and length of hospital stays were analyzed. PROs included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab standard evaluation, intervertebral fusion rate, and postoperative complications.

Results: A total of 89 patients were included in this analysis involving 41 patients who underwent PE-LIF and 48 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. The 2 groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index, follow-up time and surgery levels ( > 0.05), and were not significantly different in the length of hospital stays ( > 0.05). PE-LIF had a significantly longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy time, lower estimated blood loss and shorter bed rest time than MIS-TLIF. Both groups improved significantly from baseline for the VAS and ODI scores. PE-LIF was associated with a lower VAS score for back pain at three-day after surgery. There were no significant differences between PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF in the excellent or good rates and intervertebral fusion rates at the last follow-up ( > 0.05). As for related complications, there were no significant complications occurred, and no significant differences were seen in the complications between both groups ( > 0.05).

Conclusions: To summarize, PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LSS. PE-LIF has a definite short-term curative effect with less trauma.

Citing Articles

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.

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.

Pholprajug P, Kotheeranurak V, Liu Y, Kim J Neurospine. 2024; 20(4):1224-1245.

PMID: 38171291 PMC: 10762387. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346888.444.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Li W, Wei H, Zhang R BMC Surg. 2023; 23(1):345.

PMID: 37968633 PMC: 10652640. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02242-w.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PETLIF): Current Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Narrative Review.

Ono K, Fukuhara D, Nagahama K, Abe Y, Takahashi K, Majima T J Clin Med. 2023; 12(16).

PMID: 37629437 PMC: 10455973. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165391.

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Hu X, Yan L, Jin X, Liu H, Chai J, Zhao B Global Spine J. 2023; 14(1):295-305.

PMID: 36999647 PMC: 10676174. DOI: 10.1177/21925682231168577.

References

Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X . Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2009; 19(2):316-24. PMC: 2899808. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6. View

Pan M, Li Q, Li S, Mao H, Meng B, Zhou F . Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Indications and Complications. Pain Physician. 2020; 23(1):49-56. View

Osman S . Endoscopic transforaminal decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation of the lumbar spine: A case series report. Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 6:157-66. PMC: 4300894. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.04.001. View

Lafian A, Torralba K . Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Older Adults. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018; 44(3):501-512. DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2018.03.008. View

Yang J, Liu C, Hai Y, Yin P, Zhou L, Zhang Y . Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Report of Seven Cases with 12-Month Follow-Up. Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019:3091459. PMC: 6451828. DOI: 10.1155/2019/3091459. View

Hu W, Tang J, Wu X, Zhang L, Ke B . Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(9):1883-90. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3153-z. View

Wu W, Yang S, Diao W, Wang D, Guo Y, Yan M . Analysis of clinical efficacy of endo-LIF in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. J Clin Neurosci. 2019; 71:51-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2019.11.004. View

Wong A, Smith Z, Stadler 3rd J, Hu X, Yan J, Li X . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014; 25(2):279-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.007. View

Farrokhi M, Yadollahikhales G, Gholami M, Mousavi S, Mesbahi A, Asadi-Pooya A . Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion vs. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability. Pain Physician. 2018; 21(4):383-406. View

10.

Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, Tang Y, Zhang C, Zhou Y . Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: Is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to.... Int J Surg. 2020; 76:136-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.043. View

11.

Deyo R, Mirza S, Martin B, Kreuter W, Goodman D, Jarvik J . Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010; 303(13):1259-65. PMC: 2885954. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.338. View

12.

Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C . Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ. 2016; 352:h6234. PMC: 6887476. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6234. View

13.

de Kunder S, van Kuijk S, Rijkers K, Caelers I, van Hemert W, de Bie R . 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018. View

14.

Wu R, Fraser J, Hartl R . Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(26):2273-81. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cd42cc. View

15.

Kim C, Easley K, Lee J, Hong J, Virk M, Hsieh P . Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(2 Suppl):143S-150S. PMC: 7263326. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219882344. View

16.

Minetama M, Kawakami M, Teraguchi M, Kagotani R, Mera Y, Sumiya T . Supervised physical therapy vs. home exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2019; 19(8):1310-1318. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.009. View

17.

Zhang J, Jin M, Zhao T, Shao H, Liu J, Chen J . [Clinical application of percutaneous transforaminal endoscope-assisted lumbar interbody fusion]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2019; 32(12):1138-1143. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2019.12.014. View

18.

Fan S, Hu Z . [Correctly grasp the concept of minimally invasive, innovatively develop spinal fusion technology]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2021; 34(4):293-6. DOI: 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2021.04.001. View

19.

Kou Y, Chang J, Guan X, Chang Q, Feng H . Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021; 152:e352-e368. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.05.109. View

20.

Chagnas M, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau M, Rannou F, Nguyen C . Diagnosis and management of lumbar spinal stenosis in primary care in France: a survey of general practitioners. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20(1):431. PMC: 6745066. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2782-y. View