» Articles » PMID: 36064875

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Prospective, Controlled Observational Study of Short-term Outcome

Overview
Journal Neurosurg Rev
Specialty Neurosurgery
Date 2022 Sep 6
PMID 36064875
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompression may contradict MIS techniques. In order to detect differences between both techniques in the short-term, a prospective, controlled study was conducted. Thirty-eight patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease were included in this prospective, controlled study (15 MIS-TLIF group vs. 23 O-TLIF group) after failed conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively, on the first, third, and sixth postoperative day as well as after 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Outcome parameters included blood loss, duration of surgery, pre- and postoperative pain (numeric rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), functionality (Timed Up and Go test [TUG]), disability (Oswestry Disability index [ODI]), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Intraoperative blood loss (IBL) as well as postoperative blood loss (PBL) was significantly higher in the O-TLIF group ([IBL O-TLIF 528 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 213 ml, p = 0.001], [PBL O-TLIF 322 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 30 ml, p = 0.004]). The O-TLIF cohort showed significantly less leg pain postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group ([NRS leg 3rd postoperative day, p = 0.027], [VAS leg 12 weeks post-op, p = 0.02]). The MIS group showed a significantly better improvement in the overall ODI (40.8 ± 13 vs. 56.0 ± 16; p = 0.05). After 3 months in the short-term follow-up, the MIS procedure tends to have better results in terms of patient-reported quality of life. MIS-TLIF offers perioperative advantages but may carry the risk of increased nerve root manipulation with consecutive higher radicular pain, which may be related to the learning curve of the procedure.

Citing Articles

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Fusion Surgery for Spondylolisthesis Treatment.

Munazzam S, Rai V, Asfandyar Q, Khan S, Mohammed C J Orthop Case Rep. 2025; 15(1):224-234.

PMID: 39801843 PMC: 11723757. DOI: 10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5184.


Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study.

Zhu F, Jia D, Zhang Y, Feng C, Ning Y, Leng X J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):150.

PMID: 38378729 PMC: 10880294. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04630-1.


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.


Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.

Potasova M, Filipp P, Rusnak R, Moraucikova E, Repova K, Kutis P J Clin Med. 2023; 12(14).

PMID: 37510873 PMC: 10381332. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144755.


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
1.
Brox J, Reikeras O, Nygaard O, Sorensen R, Indahl A, Holm I . Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain. 2006; 122(1-2):145-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.027. View

2.
Deyo R, Nachemson A, Mirza S . Spinal-fusion surgery - the case for restraint. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(7):722-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb031771. View

3.
Epstein N . Open laminoforaminotomy: A lost art?. Surg Neurol Int. 2015; 6(Suppl 24):S600-7. PMC: 4671142. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.170435. View

4.
Eriksson K, Wikstrom L, Arestedt K, Fridlund B, Brostrom A . Numeric rating scale: patients' perceptions of its use in postoperative pain assessments. Appl Nurs Res. 2013; 27(1):41-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.apnr.2013.10.006. View

5.
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