Comparison of the clinical outcomes of VBE-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.

OBJECTIVE: This research aims to compare the clinical outcomes of VBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of patients with single-level degenerative lumbar diseases. METHODS: Ninety patients were enrolled in this study. The estimated blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospitalization days, time to functional exercise, amount of surgical drain and inflammatory index were recorded. The visual analog scale, Oswestry dysfunction index and modified MacNab criteria were used to assessed the patient's back and leg pain, functional status and clinical satisfaction rates. RESULTS: The average operation time of the VBE-TLIF group was longer than that of the MIS-TLIF group. The time for functional exercise, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss and amount of surgical drain in the VBE-TLIF group were relative shorter than those in the MIS-TLIF group. Additionally, the levels of CRP, neutrophil, IL-6 and CPK in the VBE-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the MIS-TLIF group at postoperative days 1 and 3, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing VBE-TLIF had significantly lower back VAS scores than those in the MIS-TLIF group on postoperative days 1 and 3 (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the clinical satisfaction rates (95.83 vs. 95.24%, P = 0.458) or interbody fusion rate (97.92 vs. 95.24%, P = 0.730) between these two surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Both VBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are safe and effective surgical procedures for patients with lumbar diseases, but VBE-TLIF technique is a preferred surgical procedure with merits of reduced surgical trauma and quicker recovery.

Long-term comparison of anterior (ALIF) versus transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched register-based study.

PURPOSE: Anterior (ALIF) and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion have shown similar clinical outcomes at short- and medium-term follow-ups. Possible advantages of ALIF in the long run could be better disc height and lumbar lordosis and reduced risk of adjacent segment disease. We aimed to study if ALIF could be associated with superior clinical outcomes than TLIF at long-term follow-up. METHODS: We analysed 535 patients treated with ALIF or TLIF of the L5-S1 spinal segment between 2007 and 2017 who completed long-term follow-up in a national spine registry database (NORspine). We defined treatment success after surgery as at least 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at long-term follow-up. Patients treated with ALIF and TLIF and who responded at long term were balanced by propensity score matching. The proportions of successfully treated patients within each group were compared by numbers and percentages with corresponding relative risk. RESULTS: The mean (95%CI) age of the total study population was 50 (49-51) years, and 264 (49%) were females. The mean (95%CI) preoperative ODI score was 40 (39-42), and 174 (33%) had previous spine surgery. Propensity score matching left 120 patients in each treatment group. At a median (95%CI) of 92 (88-97) months after surgery, we found no difference in proportions successfully treated patients with ALIF versus TLIF (68 (58%) versus 77 (65%), RR (95%CI) = 0.88 (0.72 to1.08); p = 0.237). CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score-matched national spine register study of patients treated with ALIF versus TLIF of the lumbosacral junction found no differences in proportions of successfully treated patients at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Endplate weakening during cage bed preparation significantly reduces endplate load capacity.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of endplate weakness prior to PLIF or TLIF cage implantation and compare it to the opposite intact endplate of the same vertebral body. In addition, the influence of bone quality on endplate resistance was investigated. METHODS: Twenty-two human lumbar vertebrae were tested in a ramp-to-failure test. One endplate of each vertebral body was tested intact and the other after weakening with a rasp (over an area of 200 mm2). Either a TLIF or PLIF cage was then placed and the compression load was applied across the cage until failure of the endplate. Failure was defined as the first local maximum of the force measurement. Bone quality was assessed by determining the Hounsfield units (HU) on CT images. RESULTS: With an intact endplate and a TLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1276.3N (693.1-1980.6N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 15% (0-23%). With an intact endplate and a PLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1057.2N (701.2-1735.5N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 36.6% (7-47.9%). Bone quality correlated linearly with the force at which endplate failure occurred. Intact and weakened endplates showed a strong positive correlation: intact-TLIF: r = 0.964, slope of the regression line (slope) = 11.8, p < 0.001; intact-PLIF: r = 0.909, slope = 11.2, p = 5.5E-05; weakened-TLIF: r = 0.973, slope = 12.5, p < 0.001; weakened-PLIF: r = 0.836, slope = 6, p = 0.003. CONCLUSION: Weakening of the endplate during cage bed preparation significantly reduces the resistance of the endplate to subsidence to failure: endplate load capacity is reduced by 15% with TLIF and 37% with PLIF. Bone quality correlates with the force at which endplate failure occurs.

What is the early fate of adjacent segmental lordosis compensation at L3-4 and L5-S1 following a lateral versus transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion at L4-5?

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative spondylolisthesis causes translational and angular malalignment, resulting in a loss of segmental lordosis. This leads to compensatory adjustments in adjacent levels to maintain balance. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are common techniques at L4-5. This study compares compensatory changes at adjacent L3-4 and L5-S1 levels six months post LLIF versus TLIF for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5. METHODS: A retrospective study included patients undergoing L4-5 LLIF or TLIF with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation (no posterior osteotomy) for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Pre-op and 6-month post-op radiographs measured segmental lordosis (L3-L4, L4-L5, L5-S1), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI), along with PI-LL mismatch. Multiple regressions were used for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: 113 patients (61 LLIF, 52 TLIF) were studied. TLIF showed less change in L4-5 lordosis (mean = 1.04°, SD = 4.34) compared to LLIF (mean = 4.99°, SD = 5.53) (p = 0.003). L4-5 angle changes didn't correlate with L3-4 changes, and no disparity between LLIF and TLIF was found (all p > 0.16). In LLIF, greater L4-5 lordosis change predicted reduced compensatory L5-S1 lordosis (p = 0.04), while no significant relationship was observed in TLIF patients (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: LLIF at L4-5 increases lordosis at the operated level, with compensatory decrease at L5-S1 but not L3-4. This reciprocal loss at adjacent L5-S1 may explain inconsistent improvement in lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) post L4-5 fusion.

Moderate sagittal plane deformity patients have similar radiographic and functional outcomes with either anterior or posterior surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of two surgical interventions for adult spinal deformity (ASD): anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior column realignment (ALIF-ACR) and posterior approach using Smith-Peterson osteotomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation (TLIF-Schwab2). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 61 ASD patients treated surgically between 2019 and 2020 at a single tertiary orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (ALIF-ACR, 29 patients) and Group 2 (TLIF-Schwab2, 32 patients). Spinopelvic radiographic parameters and functional outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. RESULTS: Perioperative outcomes favored the ALIF-ACR group, with significantly smaller blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and operative time. Radiographic and functional outcomes were similar for both groups; however, the ALIF-ACR group did have a greater degree of correction in lumbar lordosis at 12 months. Complication profiles varied, with the ALIF-ACR group experiencing mostly hardware-related complications, while the TLIF-Schwab2 group faced dural tears, wound dehiscence, and proximal junctional kyphosis. Both groups had similar revision rates. CONCLUSION: Both ALIF-ACR and TLIF-Schwab2 achieved similar radiographic and functional outcomes in ASD patients with moderate sagittal plane deformity at 1-year follow-up. However, the safety profiles of the two techniques differed. Further research is required to optimize patient selection for each surgical approach, aiming to minimize perioperative complications and reoperation rates in this challenging patient population.

Ultrasonic bone curette-assisted unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS-TLIF for severe lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC) for treating severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and traditional tool laminectomy decompression MIS-TLIF for treating severe DLSS. METHODS: The clinical data of 128 patients with single-segment severe DLSS who were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 67 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC group), whereas 61 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using traditional tools (traditional group, control). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate back and lower limb pain before the operation,immediate postoperative, and one week, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Zurich claudication score (ZCQ) were employed to evaluate the improvement in low back and lower limb function. At the last follow-up, the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was utilized to evaluate bone graft fusion. RESULTS: The decompression time of laminectomy was significantly shorter in the UBC group than in the traditional group (control group), and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores of the two groups after the operation were significantly improved compared to those before the operation (P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS back scores than the control group immediate postoperative and one week after the operation(P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS lower limb scores than the control group immediate postoperative (P < 0.05).The incidence of perioperative complications, hospitalization time, dural sac cross-sectional area (CSA), and dural sac CSA improvement rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS and ODI scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before,three, six months, one year, and two years after surgery (P > 0.05). The ZCQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before the operation at one week, six months, one year, and two years after the operation (P > 0.05). According to the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard, bone graft fusion did not occur significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05) at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: UBC unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF in treating severe DLSS can achieve clinical efficacy as traditional tool unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF and reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage. It can also shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the work intensity of the operator, and reduce the degree of low back pain during short-term follow-ups. Therefore, this is a safe and effective surgical method.

Comparison of a novel hand-held retractor-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the wiltse approach and posterior TLIF: a one-year prospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of a novel hand-held retractor system-assisted Wiltse TLIF with that P-TLIF and assess whether this hand-held retractor system assisted Wiltse TLIF can yield less paraspinal muscle injury. METHODS: 56 patients (P-TLIF: 26, Wiltse TLIF: 30) were included in this one year prospective controlled study. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, mobilization time, and discharge time were recorded. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by ODI, VAS, JOA, and SF-36 scores (7 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery). Paraspinal muscle injury was assessed by postoperative MRI (6 months after surgery). CK and C-reaction protein were measured pre and postoperatively, and CT or X-ray (one year postoperatively) was used to assess bony union/non-union. RESULTS: The Wiltse (study) group was associated with significantly less estimated blood loss (79.67 ± 28.59 ml vs 192.31 ± 59.48 ml, P = 0.000*), postoperative drainage (43.33 ± 27.89 ml vs 285.57 ± 123.05 ml, P = 0.000*), and shorter mobilization (4.1 ± 1.2 d vs. 3.0 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.05) and discharge times (7.7 ± 1.9 d vs. 6.1 ± 1.2 d, P = 0.002*) than the P-TLIF (control) group. Serum CK activity at 24 h postoperatively in the study group was significantly lower than in the control group (384.10 ± 141.99 U/L vs 532.76 ± 225.76 U/L, P = 0.018*). At 7 days after surgery, VAS (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 3.2 ± 0.7, P = 0.000*)and ODI scores (43.9 ± 11.9 vs 55.2 ± 12.9, P = 0.001*) were lower, while the JOA scores (18.4 ± 3.4 vs 16.3 ± 4.2, P = 0.041*) was higher in the control group than in the study group. Results observed at 3 months of follow-up were consistent with those at 7 days. After six months postoperatively, paraspinal muscle degeneration in the control group was more significant than in the study group (P = 0.008*). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that this novel hand-held retractor system assisted Wiltse approach TLIF can significantly reduce paraspinal muscle injury, postoperative drainage, and intraoperative blood loss, mobilization and discharge time, as well as yield better short-term outcomes compared to P-TLIF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 25/09/2023 NCT06052579.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in treatment of degenerative diseases of lumbosacral spine compared to modified open TLIF: a prospective randomised controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) compared to modified open TLIF via the Wiltse approach for treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral region. The results were evaluated over a post-operative period of 48 months. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Radiological data and medical records of patients who underwent MIS TLIF and modified open TLIF between May 2017 and May 2021 were reviewed. Parameters monitored to evaluate the surgical results were: clinical status, operation time, blood loss, radiation dose to patient, day of discharge, analgesic consumption, fusion, and complications rate. For functional assessment, the Visual Analogue Scale for back pain (VAS-BP), VAS for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient Satisfaction Rate (PSR), and the complication rate were used. RESULTS: This study included 57 patients randomly divided into two groups: 30 operated on using the MIS TLIF technique, and 27 operated on using the modified open TLIF technique via the Wiltse approach. 48-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts. Patients did not differ significantly at baseline in terms of ODI, VAS-BP, or VAS-LP. Perioperatively, MIS TLIF was associated with significantly less blood loss (167.3 ± 80.0 vs. 297.9 ± 81.5 ml, p = 1.1E-05), slightly longer procedures (185.7 ± 45.2 vs. 183.1 ± 66.4 minutes, p = 0.76), a lower radiation dose (MIS 16.9 ± 7.1 vs. 22.0 ± 9.7 mGy OPEN p = 0.012), and shorter hospitalisations (MIS 5.9 ± 1.8 vs. 7.7 ± 1.6 days OPEN). The most common complication was radiculitis, which accounted for 33% and 37% in the MIS and the TLIF groups, respectively. The second most common complication was malposition of the fixation material, which accounted for 18.5% in the TLIF group and 20% in the MIS group. The level of fusion achieved was 92.6% in the MIS group versus 92.3% in the TLIF group. There was lower consumption of analgesics in MIS. Patient Satisfaction Rate (PSR) was 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiological outcomes after MIS TLIF in patients with degenerative disease of the lumbosacral region are generally favourable. MIS TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, a lower radiation dose and an earlier discharge, but there was no difference between MIS TLIF and modified open TLIF in 48-month outcomes in terms of disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or patient satisfaction rate or complication rate. Although the differences taper off over time, MIS TLIF has undeniable advantages in the perioperative and early postoperative periods.

Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) has been gradually applied in clinical practice. UBE has two channels, with good visual field and operating space, and has achieved good results in the treatment of lumbar spine diseases. Some scholars combine UBE with vertebral body fusion to replace traditional open fusion surgery and minimally invasive fusion surgery. The efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, BE-TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) are compared in the efficacy and complications of lumbar degenerative diseases. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search literatures related to BE-TLIF before January 2023, to identify relevant studies, and systematically review all literatures. Evaluation indicators mainly include operation time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies were included in this study; a total of 637 patients were collected, and 710 vertebral bodies were treated. Nine studies showed that there was no significant difference in VAS score, ODI, fusion rate, and complication rate between BE-TLIF and MI-TLIF at the final follow-up after surgery. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that BE-TLIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. BE-TLIF surgery has similar good efficacy to MI-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. And compared with MI-TLIF, it has the advantages of early postoperative relief of low-back pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature.

INTRODUCTION: The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD = - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD = - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

A prospective randomised controlled trial evaluating prophylactic Floseal, a gelatin and thrombin-based haemostatic matrix, in postoperative drain output and blood transfusion in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prophylactic use of Floseal in reducing postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). TLIF is a lumbar spine decompression and fusion procedure with potential for postoperative blood loss. Prophylactic application of Floseal, a gelatin and thrombin-based haemostatic matrix to the surgical wound before closure was shown to be effective in reducing postoperative drain output in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This study postulated that prophylactic use of Floseal before wound closure would reduce postoperative blood loss in patients who underwent TLIF. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial comparing prophylactic use of Floseal and control in patients undergoing single level or two-level TLIF. Primary outcomes included postoperative drain output within 24 h and postoperative transfusion rate. Secondary outcomes included days of drain placement, length of stay and haemoglobin level. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients was recruited. Twenty six patients were allocated to the Floseal group and 24 were allocated to the control group. There were no baseline characteristic differences between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes which included postoperative drain output within 24 h and postoperative transfusion rate between patients who received prophylactic Floseal and control. There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes which included haemoglobin level, days of drain placement and length of stay between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of Floseal was not shown to reduce postoperative bleeding in single level or two-level TLIF.

Residual motion of different posterior instrumentation and interbody fusion constructs.

PURPOSE: To elucidate residual motion of cortical screw (CS) and pedicle screw (PS) constructs with unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ul-PLIF), bilateral PLIF (bl-PLIF), facet-sparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (fs-TLIF), and facet-resecting TLIF (fr-TLIF). METHODS: A total of 35 human cadaver lumbar segments were instrumented with PS (n = 18) and CS (n = 17). Range of motion (ROM) and relative ROM changes were recorded in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), and axial compression (AC) in five instrumentational states: without interbody fusion (wo-IF), ul-PLIF, bl-PLIF, fs-TLIF, and fr-TLIF. RESULTS: Whereas FE, LB, AR, and AC noticeably differed between the instrumentational states, AS and LS were less prominently affected. Compared to wo-IF, ul-PLIF caused a significant increase in ROM with PS (FE + 42%, LB + 24%, AR + 34%, and AC + 77%), however, such changes were non-significant with CS. ROM was similar between wo-IF and all other interbody fusion techniques. Insertion of a second PLIF (bl-PLIF) significantly decreased ROM with CS (FE -17%, LB -26%, AR -20%, AC -51%) and PS (FE - 23%, LB - 14%, AR - 20%, AC - 45%,). Facet removal in TLIF significantly increased ROM with CS (FE + 6%, LB + 9%, AR + 17%, AC of + 23%) and PS (FE + 7%, AR + 12%, AC + 13%). CONCLUSION: bl-PLIF and TLIF show similarly low residual motion in both PS and CS constructs, but ul-PLIF results in increased motion. The fs-TLIF technique is able to further decrease motion compared to fr-TLIF in both the CS and PS constructs.

Residual motion of cortical versus pedicle screw constructs after decompression, interbody fusion and cross-link augmentation.

PURPOSE: To compare the residual range of motion (ROM) of cortical screw (CS) versus pedicle screw (PS) instrumented lumbar segments and the additional effect of transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and cross-link (CL) augmentation. METHODS: ROM of thirty-five human cadaver lumbar segments in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression (AC) was recorded. After instrumenting the segments with PS (n = 17) and CS (n = 18), ROM in relation to the uninstrumented segments was evaluated without and with CL augmentation before and after decompression and TLIF. RESULTS: CS and PS instrumentations both significantly reduced ROM in all loading directions, except AC. In undecompressed segments, a significantly lower relative (and absolute) reduction of motion in LB was found with CS 61% (absolute 3.3°) as compared to PS 71% (4.0°; p = 0.048). FE, AR, AS, LS, and AC values were similar between CS and PS instrumented segments without interbody fusion. After decompression and TLIF insertion, no difference between CS and PS was found in LB and neither in any other loading direction. CL augmentation did not diminish differences in LB between CS and PS in the undecompressed state but led to an additional small AR reduction of 11% (0.15°) in CS and 7% (0.05°) in PS instrumentation. CONCLUSION: Similar residual motion is found with CS and PS instrumentation, except of slightly, but significantly inferior reduction of ROM in LB with CS. Differences between CS and PS in diminish with TLIF but not with CL augmentation.

Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF.

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of patients with severe stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), focusing on dural tears rates, other complications, clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study included patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (Shizas C or D) and lumbar DS who underwent MIDLIF or MIS-TLIF. Propensity score matching was done and the groups were compared regarding surgery time, length of stay, perioperative complications, clinical results and radiological outcomes, at 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: The study included initially 80 patients, and 72 patients after matching, 36 in each group. Six patients had dural tears, four in the MIDLIF group and two in the MIS-TLIF group (p = 0.67). General complication rates and reoperations were not significantly different between the groups. Good or excellent clinical was achieved in 75% of the MIDLIF patients and 72% of the MIS-TLIF patients (p = 0.91). Radiological parameters showed small but statistically significant (p < 0.01) improvements after surgery, particularly in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis (2.0° and 1.7°), while pelvic tilt and global tilt decreased (1.6° and 2.6°). These findings were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that MIDLIF is a safe and reliable minimally invasive alternative for lumbar interbody fusion in DS, even in patients with severe stenosis and previous spine surgery. It seems to offer similar results to MIS-TLIF regarding clinical results, radiological outcomes and complications.

Risk factors for spinal subdural hematoma after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): a multivariate analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal subdural hematoma (SSH) is a rare cause of compression of the neutral elements of the spinal cord. However, little is known about the presentation of acute SSH after lumbar spine surgery. The reason for this may be that symptomatic SSH occurs rarely and is not given enough attention by spine surgeons. Currently, the decision to perform MRI postoperatively is more dependent on surgeon preference; therefore, no high-quality studies have been published. Our team reports our experience in the diagnosis and management of SSH after lumbar decompression and fusion surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 215 patients who underwent routine MRI following minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) between 2020-01-01 and 2022-06-30. The patients were divided into SSH group (17 cases) and non-SSH group (198 cases) according to the occurrence of SSH. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify relevant risk factors that increase the risk of SSH postoperatively. RESULTS: None of the patients presented with serious neurologic symptoms, such as lower extremity paralysis or cauda equina syndrome that required emergency hematoma debridement. SSH was found in 17 (7.9%) patients and non-SSH in 198 (92.1%). Factors affecting SSH were presence of hypertension, presence of diabetes and postoperative anticoagulant therapy. The significantly independent risk factor of postoperative SSH were diabetes (P = 0.008, OR: 6.988) and postoperative anticoagulant therapy (P = 0.003, OR: 8.808). CONCLUSIONS: SSH after MI-TLIF is not a rare condition, with generally no requirement of emergency evacuation. Comprehensive anti-symptomatic treatment could achieve satisfactory results. Diabetes mellitus and postoperative anticoagulant therapy are independent risk factors for SSH. Spine surgeons should hold applicability of the use of anticoagulants after lumbar surgery.

Improvement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients aged 70 years or older compared with younger age groups.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients ≥ 70 years old and compare them to younger age groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of data that were collected prospectively. Patients who underwent primary single-level MI-TLIF were included and divided into 3 groups: age < 60, 60-69, and ≥ 70 years. The outcome measures were as follows: 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS]); 2) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement; 3) return to activities; 4) opioid discontinuation; 5) fusion rates; and 6) complications/reoperations. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients (age < 60 years, 62; 60-69 years, 47; ≥ 70 years, 38) were included. All the groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) time points and there was no significant difference between the groups. Although MCID achievement rates for VAS leg and ODI were similar, they were lower in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and SF-12 PCS. Although the time to MCID achievement for ODI and SF-12 PCS was similar, it was greater in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and leg. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of return to activities, opioid discontinuation, fusion rates, and complication/reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients > 70 years of age may be less likely and/or take longer to achieve MCID compared to their younger counterparts, they show an overall significant improvement in PROMs, a similar likelihood of returning to activities and discontinuing opioids, and comparable fusion and complication/reoperation rates following MI-TLIF.

Poor mental health scores correlate with inferior outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Limited spine literature has studied the strength of association of mental health with other outcomes at time of survey collection. We aim to evaluate the degree to which mental health correlates with outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) at several postoperative periods. METHODS: Patients having undergone elective MIS-TLIF were searched within a retrospective single-surgeon database. Five hundred eighty-five patients were included. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF), 12-item Short Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS) and Mental Component Score (SF-12 MCS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year periods. Pearson's correlation tests were used to evaluate the association between both SF-12 MCS and PHQ-9 scores to other PROs at each period. RESULTS: SF-12 MCS correlated with PROMIS PF (|r|= 0.308-0.531), SF-12 PCS (|r|= 0.207-0.328), VAS back (|r|= 0.279-0.474), VAS leg (|r|= 0.178-0.395), and ODI (|r|= 0.450-0.538) at all time points (P ≤ 0.021, all) except for preoperative SF-12 PCS and 1-year VAS leg. PHQ-9 correlated with PROMIS PF (|r|= 0.366-0.701), SF-12 PCS (|r|= 0.305-0.568), VAS back (|r|= 0.362-0.714), VAS leg (|r|= 0.319-0.694), and ODI (|r|= 0.613-0.784) at all periods (P < 0.001, all). CONCLUSION: Poor mental health scores were correlated with lower physical function, elevated pain scores, and higher disability. PHQ-9 scores demonstrated stronger correlation in all relationships compared to SF-12 MCS. Optimization of patient mental health may lead to improved patient perception regarding function, pain, and disability following MIS-TLIF.

Postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus LLIF for adjacent segment disease.

PURPOSE: Few studies examine the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for adjacent segment disease (ASD). We aim to compare the postoperative clinical trajectory through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus LLIF for ASD. METHODS: Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on surgical technique for ASD: MIS-TLIF versus LLIF. PROMs of 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year time points. MCID attainment was calculated through comparison to established thresholds. Cohorts were compared through nonparametric inferential statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified, with 22 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF after propensity score matching. Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF for ASD demonstrated significant postoperative improvement up to 1-year VAS back, up to 1-year VAS leg, and 6-month through 1-year ODI (p ≤ 0.035, all). Patients undergoing LLIF demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in 6-month SF-12 PCS, 6-month through 1-year VAS back, 12-week through 6-month VAS leg, and 6-month to 1-year ODI (p ≤ 0.035, all). No significant differences were calculated between surgical techniques for PROMs or MCID achievement rates. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or LLIF for adjacent segment disease demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in pain and disability outcomes. Additionally, patients undergoing LLIF reported significant improvement in physical function. Both MIS-TLIF and LLIF are effective for the treatment of adjacent segment disease.

Depressed patients with greater symptom duration before MIS-TLIF do not report inferior outcomes.

PURPOSE: Patients with preoperative depressive symptoms may demonstrate inferior patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The effect of preoperative symptom duration (SD) on PROs in this population has not been well-studied. We aim to assess the influence of preoperative SD on PROs in patients with low mental health scores prior to minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). METHODS: Patients who had undergone elective, primary MIS-TLIF with preoperative SF-12 MCS score below 45.6, a previously established threshold for depression, were selected. Patients were divided into matched lesser duration (LD; SD<365 days) and greater duration (GD; SD≥365 days) cohorts. PROs were collected preoperatively and at 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year postoperative periods. PROs included PROMIS-PF/ODI/VAS back/VAS leg/SF-12 MCS. PROs were compared within and between groups. Rates of achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were compared between groups. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients were included after matching cohorts. Patients in the LD cohort demonstrated improvement in PROMIS-PF at 12-weeks/6-month/1-year, and ODI/VAS back/VAS leg/SF-12 MCS at all postoperative periods (p≤0.024, all). Patients in the GD cohort demonstrated improvement in PROMIS-PF at 12-weeks/6-month/1-year, and ODI/VAS back/VAS leg/SF-12 MCS at all postoperative periods (p≤0.013, all). There were no differences in PROs or MCID achievement between cohorts at any period. CONCLUSION: Patients with preoperative depressive symptoms undergoing MIS-TLIF, regardless of duration of preoperative symptoms, demonstrated improvements in physical function, disability, pain, and mental health domains. Patients with greater duration of preoperative symptoms did not report inferior outcomes at any period. Rates of clinically important improvements in all domains were favorable and similar between cohorts.

Recovery ratios and minimum clinically important difference for clinical outcomes in workers' compensation recipients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of literature that examines clinical outcomes through patient-reported outcomes (PROs), minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and recovery ratios (RR) for workers' compensation (WC) recipients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: WC claimants undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF were propensity score matched to account for demographic differences. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and PROs were collected. PROs of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative time points. MCID achievement was determined through comparison to values in literature. RR was calculated as the difference between postoperative and preoperative PROs over potential improvement. Comparison between surgical techniques was through non-parametric inferential statistics. RESULTS: Eighty-four WC claimants, with 50 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF, were identified after propensity score matching. ALIF patients had higher estimated blood loss. MIS-TLIF patients had higher postoperative day (POD) 0 VAS pain and POD 0 + 1 narcotic consumption. Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported significant improvement in physical function. ALIF patients reported superior 1-year PROMIS-PF, 6-week SF-12 PCS, 6-month VAS back, and 12-week VAS leg. No significant differences in MCID achievement rates were noted between cohorts. ALIF patients had higher RR in 6-week and 1-year PROMIS-PF and 6-week SF-12 PCS. CONCLUSION: Workers' compensation claimants undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported superior postoperative physical function and pain. ALIF patients had higher recovery ratios in physical function. Workers' compensation claimants undergoing ALIF may experience greater physical function recovery and superior clinical outcomes in physical function and pain.