Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.

DATA BACKGROUND: Because the traditional open-TLIF approach has several drawbacks, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for TLIF (MISTLIF) have been developed to speed up recovery after surgery and minimize pressure on the para-spinal muscles, necessitating a cost-utility analysis for comparison in healthcare reforms. OBJECTIVES AND AIM OF THE WORK: This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical parameters between mini-open TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. HYPOTHESIS: This study hypothesizes that both minimally invasive and mini-open methods using sublaminar trimming laminoplasty (SLTL) (while preserving midline structures) and interbody cages have comparable mid- and long-term clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed on 120 patients who underwent single-level TLIF procedures with a minimum of two years of follow-up utilizing either the mini-open (n = 60) or MIS (n = 60) technique. Records of the operation's time frame, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of bed rest, and complications were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for both groups were utilized to assess improvements in clinical scores, and t tests were employed to statistically compare the outcomes. For comparison, radiological parameters, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence (PI), and localized lordosis at the index level, were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. To assess postoperative interbody fusion, the Bridwell grading system was used. RESULTS: In the Mini-open TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 24.91 ± 5.7 months, while in the MIS-TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 25.15 ± 4.2 months. In the MIS-TLIF group, the mean operation and radiological time were longer. However, compared to the Mini-open TLIF group, the MISTLIF group experienced less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The MIS-TLIF group outperformed the Open-TLIF group in terms of the VAS score for back pain and the ODI at less than 6 months following surgery, and the differences were statistically significant. However, at the final follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in the VAS score for the back between the two groups, but the ODI score was significantly greater in the MIS-TLIF group. Both groups' lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis significantly improved at the index level, with the Mini-open-TLIF group showing more focal lordosis. The interbody fusion rate did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: MIS-TLIF and mini-open-TLIF can be surgically effective in treating single-level degenerative lumbar spine spondylolisthesis.

Can minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion achieve a better clinical and radiological outcome than traditional open technique in isthmic spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND: Spondylolisthesis is a prevalent condition in the lumbar spine that can cause low back pain, leg pain, neurogenic claudication, and impact health-related quality of life in symptomatic individuals. AIM: to assess the results of minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) versus open-TLIF and the impact of correcting spino-pelvic parameters on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. The primary objective was to compare the effectiveness of both methods in correcting spinopelvic parameters. The secondary objectives involved comparing clinical improvement, operating time, blood loss, complications, and postoperative hospital stays between the two procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in this retrospective cohort-control study, with a minimum follow-up period of 18 months. Disability was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), while back and leg discomfort were rated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for each patient. The measurements comprised the sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), and Meyerding slip grades. We measured lumbar lordosis (LL), and segmental lordosis. RESULTS: The seventy-two patients were 60 female and 12 males. There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of operation between the two groups. In the MIS group, there was a notable reduction in blood loss, higher radiation exposure, and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). The back VAS showed more favorable outcomes in the MIS-TLIF, while the leg VAS showed better results in the Open-TLIF in the early outcome. Both procedures significantly reduced leg and back pain VAS scores and ODI, with no notable difference between the two groups at the final follow-up. Post-surgery, the pelvic incidence (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL) matched properly in all patients, showing a rise in LL and sacral slope along with a decrease in pelvic tilt. CONCLUSION: Both open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective methods for correcting spino-pelvic parameters and improving HRQoL in patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. The rapid improvement in back pain experienced by these patients favored the use of MIS-TLIF. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach must be carefully evaluated.

Does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) influence functional outcomes and spinopelvic parameters in isthmic spondylolisthesis?

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We included 24 symptomatic patients who underwent MIS-TLIF between December 2017 and December 2020. Patients were followed up clinically by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and VAS for leg pain, as well as radiological radiographs after 6 weeks, 6 months, and at final follow-up (at least 12 months). Measured parameters included C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), Meyerding slip grades, lumbar lordosis (LL), L1-L4 angle, L4-S1 angle, and segmental lordosis (SL) of the affected segment. The mismatch between the PI and LL was also measured. RESULTS: VAS for back, VAS for leg pain, and ODI significantly improved postoperatively (all p < 0.001). We observed significantly decreased mean values of PT and slip percentage and increased mean values of SS and LL (all p < 0.05). We observed a significant reduction in L1-L4 lordosis and a significant increase in L4-S1 lordosis. The final PT, SS, and LL (total and L1-L4) were significantly higher in group III patients (n = 15) than the values of group II patients (n = 9). None of the patients became unbalanced postoperative, and all patients had a normal matching between the PI and the LL postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: MIS-TLIF is a safe procedure for managing low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis with significant improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes. It can correct and maintain a proper spinopelvic alignment.