Minimally Invasive Cost-Effective Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Associated Spinal Stenosis
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose
The paraspinal approach and functional anatomy sparing nature of the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion are thought to decrease operative morbidity while improving patient recovery and long-term outcomes. This paper presents a unique minimally invasive approach for the treatment of patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis and associated spinal stenosis. The novel technique described within allows for significant reduction of spondylolisthesis, while also utilizing a substantial amount of the patient’s morselized surgical site autograft, thus limiting the use of costly bone graft extenders. We aim to validate this technique by performing a critical analysis of postoperative patient reported outcomes with comparison to traditional open midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Methods
Data was reviewed for 19 patients who underwent the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique described within and subsequently compared to 140 patients who underwent traditional open midline transforaminal lumbar interbody all of whom were within the control groups of an FDA approved IDE clinical trial (NCT03115983). Operative and demographic data were collected and compared including age, gender, BMI, comorbidities, operative level, procedure time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay. Pre and postoperative patient reported outcome scores were also analyzed for both groups including visual analogue score (VAS) for back and leg/hip pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI).
Results
Procedure length (minutes), estimated blood loss (mL), and length of hospital stay (days) for the patient’s undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were 156 +/- 31, 72 +/- 32, and 2.6 +/- 1.8, respectively. Compared to traditional midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay of 189 +/- 78, 273 +/- 252, 3.1 +/- 1.7, respectively. VAS back and leg/hip pre-operatively were 79.3, 85.3, and 52.2 versus 20.6, 20.3 and 16.9 points, respectively at 2-year follow-up for the minimally invasive approach. Compared to 69.7, 78.8, and 52.7 versus 27.9, 27.8 and 22.4 at 2-year follow-up for traditional midline approach. These improvements were all statistically significant at the 5% level.
Conclusion
The minimally invasive approach described in this paper, when compared to traditional midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, resulted in shorter operative time, decreased estimated blood loss, shorter length of stay, and improvements in patient reported functional outcomes. This novel minimally invasive surgical approach to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is an excellent surgical treatment for refractory lumbar spondylolisthesis with associated stenosis.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Buchbinder R, Underwood M, Hartvigsen J, Maher CG. The Lancet Series call to action to reduce low value care for low back pain: an update. Pain. Sep 2020;161 Suppl 1(1):S57-S64.
doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001869
3. The Cochrane C, van der Gaag WH, Roelofs PDDM, et al. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020/04 2020;2020(4):CD013 581. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013581
4. The Cochrane C, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017/06 2017;2020(2):CD007938. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007938.pub4
5. Ochs G, Struppler A, Meyerson BA, et al. Intrathecal baclofen for long-term treatment of spasticity: a multi-centre study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 1989/08 1989;52 (8):933-939. doi:10.1136/jnnp.52.8.933
6. Manchikanti L, Nampiaparampil DE, Manchikanti KN, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of saline, local anesthetics, and steroids in epidural and facet joint injections for the management of spinal pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Surgical neurology international. 2015 2015;6(Suppl 4):S194-235.
doi:10.4103/2152-7806.156598
7. Chan AK, Bisson EF, Bydon M, et al. A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade 1 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: An Analysis of the Prospective Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurgery. 2020 2020;87(3):555-562. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa097
8. Li Y-B, Wang X-D, Yan H-W, et al. The Long-term Clinical Effect of Minimal-Invasive TLIF Technique in 1-Segment Lumbar Disease. Clinical spine surgery. 2017 2017;30(6):E713-E719. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000334
9. Tumialán LM. Commentary: A Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade 1 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: An Analysis of the Prospective Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurgery. 2020 2020;87(3):E306-E307. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa132
10. Halalmeh DR, Perez-Cruet MJ. Use of Local Morselized Bone Autograft in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Cost Analysis. World neurosurgery. 2020/10/28 2020; 146:e544-e554. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.10.126
11. Yavin D, Casha S, Wiebe S, et al. Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurosurgery. 2017 2017;80(5):701-715. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw162
12. Reid PC, Morr S, Kaiser MG. State of the union: a review of lumbar fusion indications and techniques for degenerative spine disease. Journal of neurosurgery Spine. 2019/07/01 2019;31(1):1-14. doi:10.3171/2019.4.SPINE18915
13. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. Journal of Spine Surgery. 2015/12 2015;1 (1):2-18. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05
14. Djurasovic M, Rouben DP, Glassman SD, Casnellie M, Carreon LY. Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Single Level TLIF: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study. The Spine Journal. 2014/10/21 2014;14(11):S28. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.08.076
15. Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F, Wirries A. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2019 2019;14(1):1-21. doi:10.1186/s13018-019-1266-y
16. Qin R, Wu T, Liu H, Zhou B, Zhou P, Zhang X. Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study. Scientific Reports. 2020 2020;10(1):1-10. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78984-x
17. Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2015/ 11/13 2015;24(3):416-427. doi:10.3171/2015.2.SPINE14973
18. Chen Y-C, Zhang L, Li E-N, et al. An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing minimally invasive with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Medicine. 2019 2019;98(43): e17420. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000017420
19. Hockley A, Ge D, Vasquez-Montes D, et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: An Analysis of Opioids, Nonopioid Analgesics, and Perioperative Characteristics. Global Spine Journal. 2019/02/26 2019;9(6):624-629. doi:10.1177/2192568218822320
20. Anderson JT, Haas AR, Percy R, Woods ST, Ahn UM, Ahn NU. Chronic Opioid Therapy After Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Disc Disease in a Workers' Compensation Setting. Spine. 2015 2015;40(22):1775-1784. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001054
21. Le H, Anderson R, Phan E, et al. Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies. Global Spine Journal. 2020/06/22 2020;11(6):903-910. doi:10.1177/2192568220932879
22. Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG, et al. Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine. 2019 2019;44(9):E555-E560. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002903
23. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2005/09/08 2005;14(9):887-894. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0941-3
24. Macki M, Hamilton T, Haddad YW, Chang V. Expandable Cage Technology—Transforaminal, Anterior, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Operative Neurosurgery. 2021 2021;21 (Supplement_1):S69-S80. doi:10.1093/ons/opaa342
25. Ambati DV, Wright EK, Lehman RA, Kang DG, Wagner SC, Dmitriev AE. Bilateral pedicle screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study. The Spine Journal. 2014/06/28 2014; 15(8):1812-1822. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.06.015
26. Administration USFaD. Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Responsibilities Accessed November 5, 2024, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/investigational-device-exemption-ide/ide-responsibilities
27. Huang Y-q, Gou R, Diao Y-s, et al. Charlson comorbidity index helps predict the risk of mortality for patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy*. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B. 2014/01 2014;15(1):58-66. doi:10.1631/jzus.B1300109
28. Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM. Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. Journal of Pain. 2003 2003; 4(7):407-414. doi:10.1016/S1526-5900(03)00716-8
29. van Hooff ML, Mannion AF, Staub LP, Ostelo RWJG, Fairbank JCT. Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a "satisfactory symptom state" in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study. The Spine Journal. 2016/06/22 2016;16(10):1221-1230. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.010
30. Abdallah DY, Jadaan MM, McCabe JP. Body mass index and risk of surgical site infection following spine surgery: a meta-analysis. European Spine Journal. 2013/07/05 2013;22(12):2800-2809. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2890-6
31. A Concurrently Controlled Study of the LimiFlex™ Paraspinous Tension Band in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Stenosis. Library of Medicine (US)
32. Wood MJ, McMillen J. The surgical learning curve and accuracy of minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw placement using CT based computer-assisted navigation plus continuous electromyography monitoring – a retrospective review of 627 screws in 150 patients. International Journal of Spine Surgery. 2014 2014;8doi:10.14444/1027
33. Barbagallo GMV, Certo F, Visocchi M, Sciacca G, Piccini M, Albanese V. Multilevel mini-open TLIFs and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: description of a simple technical nuance used to increase intraoperative safety and improve workflow. Tips and tricks and review of the literature. Neurosurgical Review. 2014/11/14 2014;38(2):343-354. doi:10.1007/s10143-014-0589-8
34. Virk S, Vaishnav AS, Sheha E, et al. Combining Expandable Interbody Cage Technology With a Minimally Invasive Technique to Harvest Iliac Crest Autograft Bone to Optimize Fusion Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery. Clinical spine surgery. 2021 2021; 34(9):E522-E530. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001228
35. Kim CW, Doerr TM, Luna IY, et al. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Technology: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis of 50 Patients. World Neurosurgery. 2016/02/24 2016;90:228-235. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.075
36. Alimi M, Shin B, Macielak M, et al. Expandable Polyaryl-Ether-Ether-Ketone Spacers for Interbody Distraction in the Lumbar Spine. Global Spine Journal. 2015/06 2015;5(3):169-178. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1552988
37. Wang MY. Improvement of sagittal balance and lumbar lordosis following less invasive adult spinal deformity surgery with expandable cages and percutaneous instrumentation. Journal of neurosurgery Spine. 2012/10/26 2012;18(1):4-12. doi:10.3171/2012.9.SPINE111081
38. Canseco JA, Karamian BA, DiMaria SL, et al. Static Versus Expandable Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Interbody Cages: A Comparison of One-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for One-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurgery. 2021/06/16 2021;152:e492-e501. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.05.128
39. Yee TJ, Joseph JR, Terman SW, Park P. Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Radiographic Comparison of Segmental and Lumbar Sagittal Angles. Neurosurgery. 2017 2017;81(1):69-74. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw177
40. Chang C-C, Chou D, Pennicooke B, et al. Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Journal of neurosurgery Spine. 2020/11/13 2020;34(3):471-480. doi:10.3171/2020.6.SPINE191378
41. Rymarczuk GN, Harrop JS, Hilis A, Hartl R. Should Expandable TLIF Cages be Used Routinely to Increase Lordosis? Clinical spine surgery. 2017 2017; 30(2):47-49. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000510