A randomized controlled trial with ≥5 years of follow‑up comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in disc herniation at single level

Zhao,Haien; Gao,Haoran; Zhou,Chengpei; Qian,Shu; Yuan,Yifang; Xue,Weigao; Qian,Jixian

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.7368

A randomized controlled trial with ≥5 years of follow‑up comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in disc herniation at single level

Authors:
- Haien Zhao
- Haoran Gao
- Chengpei Zhou
- Shu Qian
- Yifang Yuan
- Weigao Xue
- Jixian Qian
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, Tangdu Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710038, P.R. China
Published online on: March 12, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7368
Pages: 3614-3620
Copyright: © Zhao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (m‑TLIF) using transpedicular screws has various advantages over classical open (c‑) TLIF. Up to date, comparative analyses of the TLIF procedures were following patients for <5 years. The objective of the present study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and complications of m‑ and c‑TLIF in patients with single‑level disc herniation with ≥5 years follow‑up. Between June 2008 to July 2010, 91 patients with single‑level lumbar degeneration were recruited and were randomly divided into two groups: m‑TLIF and c‑TLIF. The analyzed outcome measurements included: Surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, X‑ray exposure time, T2 relaxation time in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) scores, fusion rate and complications during follow‑up. No significant differences between m‑ and c‑TLIF were observed with respect to surgery duration (P=0.077), volume of blood loss (P=0.115), complications and the need for an additional surgery (P=0.632). Significant differences between the groups were observed for X‑ray exposure time (P<0.001) and MRI T2 relaxation times at 3 months post‑surgery (P<0.001). At day 7 post surgery, recorded VAS and JOA scores were significantly improved in the m‑TLIF compared with the c‑TLIF group and non‑significant differences between the groups were observed at >1 month follow‑up. m‑TLIF was a safe and effective tool in treating single‑level lumbar disc herniation. However, careful attention to the surgical technique and precise anatomical knowledge were required. Further studies and refinement of the surgical techniques are necessary prior to treating multiple or more extensive lesions using the m‑TLIF method.

View Figures

View References

1	Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA and Singer DE: Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: Four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 25:556–562. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA and Singer DE: Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 30:934–936. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar
3	Cloward RB: History of PLIF: Forty years of personal experience. Lin PM: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Charles C Thomas. (Springfield). 58–71. 1982.
4	Cloward RB: The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 10:154–168. 1953. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Harms JG and Jeszenszky D: Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler technik. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 10:90–102. 1998.(In German). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Scheufler KM, Dohmen H and Vougioukas VI: Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 60 (4 Suppl 2). S203–S213. 2007.
7	Liu J, Deng H, Long X, Chen X, Xu R and Liu Z: A comparative study of perioperative complications between transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 25:1575–1580. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garcés Ambrossi GL, Parker SL, Sciubba DM, Bydon A, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL and Witham TF: Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Comparison of surgical morbidity. Neurol Res. 33:38–42. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB and Wang JC: Single-level lumbar spine fusion: A comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech. 15:355–361. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Stevens KJ, Spenciner DB, Griffiths KL, Kim KD, Zwienenberg-Lee M, Alamin T and Bammer R: Comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open posterolateral lumbar fusion using magnetic resonance imaging and retraction pressure studies. J Spinal Disord Tech. 19:77–86. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Foley KT, Holly LT and Schwender JD: Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 28 (15 Suppl):S26–S35. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Rouben D, Casnellie M and Ferguson M: Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 24:288–296. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Eck JC, Hodges S and Humphreys SC: Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 15:321–329. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K and Rampersaud YR: Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: Meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 24:416–427. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M and Liljenqvist U: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J. 14:551–558. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Mummaneni PV and Rodts GE Jr: The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 57 (4 Suppl):S256–S261. 2005.
17	Arts MP, Wolfs JF, Kuijlen JM and de Ruiter GC: Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: Study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial). BMJ Open. 7:e0178822017.PubMed/NCBI
18	Franke J, Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Mahlfeld K, Grasshoff H, Allam Y and Awiszus F: Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: A prospective randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Spine J. 18:992–1000. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Minamide A, Yoshida M, Simpson AK, Nakagawa Y, Iwasaki H, Tsutsui S, Takami M, Hashizume H, Yukawa Y and Yamada H: Minimally invasive spinal decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis maintains stability and may avoid the need for fusion. Bone Joint J 100-B. 499–506. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Tian W, Yan K and Han X, Yu J, Jin P and Han X: Comparison of the clinical and radiographic results between cervical artificial disk replacement and anterior cervical fusion: A 6-year prospective nonrandomized comparative study. Clin Spine Surg. 30:E578–E586. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, Herrera A, Vicente J, Suñén E, Loste A and Tabuenca A: Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J. 18:1194–1201. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven E, Muñoz-Marín J, Herrera A and Velilla J: Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3-to 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 22:2857–2863. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ and Liu J: Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 19:1780–1784. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ and Liu J: Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 20:623–628. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Guan J, Bisson EF, Dailey AT, Hood RS and Schmidt MH: Comparison of clinical outcomes in the national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database for open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 41:E416–E421. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB and Yue WM: Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 38:2049–2055. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Funao H, Ishii K, Momoshima S, Iwanami A, Hosogane N, Watanabe K, Nakamura M, Toyama Y and Matsumoto M: Surgeons' exposure to radiation in single- and multi-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; a prospective study. PLoS One. 9:e952332014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, Andersson GB, Isayeva D, Jegier BJ and Phillips FM: A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 14:1694–1701. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Vogelsang JP: The translaminar approch in combination with a tubular retractor system for the treatment of far cranio-laterally and foraminally extruded lumbar disc herniations. Zentralbl Neurochir. 68:24–28. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Wang HL, Lü FZ, Jiang JY, Ma X, Xia XL and Wang LX: Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl). 124:3868–3874. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
31	Issacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, Rice L and Fessler RG: Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 3:98–105. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI