Minimally-invasive Trans-facet Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Dual-dimension Expandable Cage: Preliminary Results of a Multi-institutional Retrospective Study

Overview

Journal J Spine Surg

Date 2024 Oct 14

PMID 39399073

Authors

Chuan-Ching Huang

Kyle R Brena

Troy Q Tabarestani

Anas Bardeesi

Mounica Paturu

Holley Spears

Ernest E Braxton

Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Minimally-invasive trans-facet lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an emerging technique that offers the advantages of being safe, enabling decompression, and facilitating patient recovery. An innovative cage that expands in two dimensions has been introduced to restore segmental lordosis and disc height while minimizing the risk of cage subsidence. This study aimed to report our surgical technique of trans-facet LIF utilizing the innovative cag and to report the early clinical outcomes.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and radiographs of patients who underwent trans-facet LIF with dual-dimension expandable cages from two institutions: Duke University Hospital and Vail-Summit Orthopaedics and Neurosurgery. The analysis covered patient demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain, surgical data, complications, and radiographic parameters. Clinical outcomes were compared between pre- and one year post-operation, while radiographic outcomes were compared between pre- and three months post-operation.

Results: Twenty patients with a mean age of 61.2 years were included. Seventeen patients (85.0%) had spondylolisthesis, and L4/5 (68.2%) was the most common pathology level. Twelve patients (60.0%) underwent awake surgery, and the mean operative time was 164.5±36.1 minutes, with an estimated blood loss of 64.0±39.5 mL and a hospital stay of 1.75±1.2 days. Four patients (20.0%) experienced cage subsidence; however, none required additional surgery. The VAS score significantly improved from a preoperative average of 7.3±2.7 to 2.6±1.6 one year post-operation (P=0.02). The ODI score also showed a significant decrease, from 48.7±22.9 preoperatively to 16.4±11.1 one year postoperatively (P=0.03). Notably, 80% and 83.3% of patients achieved the minimum clinically important difference in VAS and ODI scores, respectively. The degree of spondylolisthesis was significantly reduced from a median of 5.9 mm preoperatively to 0 mm postoperatively (P<0.001). Additionally, both anterior and posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery, from 9.8±4.7 to 15.1±2.6 mm (anterior) and from 4.9±3.3 to 10.5±2.2 mm (posterior) (P<0.001 for both). The mean segmental lordosis increased by 2.9 degrees and was associated with cage height (P=0.03), while spinopelvic parameters remained unchanged.

Conclusions: Minimally-invasive trans-facet LIF with dual-dimension expandable cages demonstrates a substantial capacity for spondylolisthesis reduction and disc height restoration, and provides good short-term clinical outcomes. It may be the most appropriate method for deploying this large cage as it allows for a large, unobstructed pathway to the disc. However, future studies are needed to determine the long-term outcomes, including the arthrodesis rate.

References

Khan N, Clark A, Lee S, Venable G, Rossi N, Foley K . Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015; 77(6):847-74. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913. View

Morimoto M, Wada K, Tamaki S, Soeda S, Sugiura K, Manabe H . Clinical Outcome of Full Endoscopic Trans Kambin's Triangle Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. 2023; 178:317-329. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.07.026. View

Briski D, Goel V, Waddell B, Serhan H, Kodigudla M, Palepu V . Does Spanning a Lateral Lumbar Interbody Cage Across the Vertebral Ring Apophysis Increase Loads Required for Failure and Mitigate Endplate Violation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42(20):E1158-E1164. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002158. View

Lowe T, Hashim S, Wilson L, OBrien M, Smith D, Diekmann M . A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(21):2389-94. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143623.18098.e5. View

Zorrilla-Vaca A, Healy R, Mirski M . A Comparison of Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2016; 29(4):415-425. DOI: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000362. View

Yao Y, Chou P, Lin H, Wang S, Liu C, Chang M . Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence in Patients Received Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020; 45(19):E1279-E1285. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003557. View

Hioki A, Miyamoto K, Kodama H, Hosoe H, Nishimoto H, Sakaeda H . Two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease: improved clinical outcome with restoration of lumbar lordosis. Spine J. 2005; 5(6):600-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.04.001. View

Tchachoua Jiembou G, Nda H, Konan M . Evaluation of lordosis recovery after lumbar arthrodesis and its clinical impact. Chin Neurosurg J. 2023; 9(1):18. PMC: 10303337. DOI: 10.1186/s41016-023-00333-4. View

Liu J, Duan P, Mummaneni P, Xie R, Li B, Dong Y . Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion induce lordosis or kyphosis? Radiographic evaluation with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 35(4):419-426. DOI: 10.3171/2020.12.SPINE201665. View

10.

Alvi M, Kurian S, Wahood W, Goyal A, Elder B, Bydon M . Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2019; 127:596-606.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.284. View

11.

Kumari C, Gupta T, Gupta R, Kumar V, Sahni D, Aggarwal A . Cadaveric anatomy of the lumbar triangular safe zone of Kambin's in North West Indian population. Anat Cell Biol. 2021; 54(1):35-41. PMC: 8017462. DOI: 10.5115/acb.20.243. View

12.

Weiss H, Garcia R, Hopkins B, Shlobin N, Dahdaleh N . A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019; :328-339. PMC: 6684700. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-019-09574-2. View

13.

Lu V, Kerezoudis P, Gilder H, McCutcheon B, Phan K, Bydon M . Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(3):E177-E185. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001731. View

14.

Cadman J, Sutterlin 3rd C, Dabirrahmani D, Appleyard R . The importance of loading the periphery of the vertebral endplate. J Spine Surg. 2016; 2(3):178-184. PMC: 5067271. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2016.09.08. View

15.

Hawasli A, Khalifeh J, Chatrath A, Yarbrough C, Ray W . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. Neurosurg Focus. 2017; 43(2):E10. DOI: 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17197. View

16.

Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy J, Lafage V . Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(25):2224-31. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4. View

17.

Park D, Heo D . The Use of Dual Direction Expandable Titanium Cage With Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Consideration With Preliminary Results. Neurospine. 2023; 20(1):110-118. PMC: 10080444. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346116.058. View

18.

Ledesma J, Lambrechts M, Dees A, Thomas T, Hiranaka C, Kurd M . Static versus Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices: A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Asian Spine J. 2022; 17(1):61-74. PMC: 9977975. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2021.0486. View

19.

Mooney J, Michalopoulos G, Alvi M, Zeitouni D, Chan A, Mummaneni P . Minimally invasive versus open lumbar spinal fusion: a matched study investigating patient-reported and surgical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 36(5):753-766. DOI: 10.3171/2021.10.SPINE211128. View

20.

McMordie J, Schmidt K, Gard A, Gillis C . Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices. Neurosurgery. 2019; 86(2):E147-E155. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyz402. View