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.

Ten-Step Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Under Computed Tomography-Based Intraoperative Navigation: Technical Report and Preliminary Outcomes in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: The principal advantage of intraoperative spinal navigation is the ease of screw placement. However, visualization and the integration of navigation can be explored with the use of navigation-guided full-endoscopic techniques. OBJECTIVE: To describe the stepwise intraoperative navigation-assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) technique and to present our preliminary results in a Mexican population. METHODS: A 10-step summary of the UBE-TLIF operative technique was described, and the clinical and radiological results are presented and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 7 patients were treated. We observed the value of integrating navigation and endoscopic visualization when decompression had to be performed. CONCLUSION: Together, intraoperative navigation and direct visualization through the endoscope may be a useful surgical tool for surgeons with experience in endoscopic spinal surgery.

The Use of Bone Morphogenetic Protein in Spinal Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Our Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Since its introduction and FDA approval, rhBMP-2 has been adopted by spine surgeons as a substitute for ICBG in numerous spinal fusion techniques. As broad clinical use increased, reports on potential complications associated with rhBMP-2 also increased. We provide our experience with TLIF using rhBMP-2 or ICBG in an entirely Hispanic population. METHODS: This was a 2-year retrospective study of 67 patients, with 26 in the rhBMP-2 group and 41 in the ICBG group, who underwent TLIF. Pertinent information was obtained through review of the medical records documenting complications, intraoperative times, and EBL, among other things. RESULTS: There were 28 post-operative complications with 15 (53.6%) in the ICBG group and 13 (46.4%) in the rhBMP-2 group. The average EBL was 572.3 mL (SD: 411.8) in the ICBG group and 397.9 mL (SD: 312.2) in the rhBMP-2 group. The average intraoperative time was 243.1 minutes (SD: 79.5) in the ICBG group and 226.5 minutes (SD: 64.7) in the rhBMP-2 group. Fifty-two patients underwent open TLIF and 15 patients underwent MI TLIF. The average EBL was 571.2 mL (SD: 375.3) in the open TLIF group and 228.3 mL (SD: 299.3) in the MI-TLIF group. The average intraoperative time was 241.0 minutes (SD: 76.0) for patients in the open TLIF group and 218.8 minutes (SD: 65.0) for those in the MI-TLIF group. There were no new cancer events at any of the 2-year follow-up visits. RESULTS: Our results suggest that the safety profile of rhBMP-2 may be inferior to that of ICBG, rejecting the possibility of ICBG being replaced by rhBMP-2 as the gold standard for spinal fusion.

A prospective clinical study comparing MI-TLIF with unilateral versus bilateral transpedicular fixation in low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has become one of the standard techniques for approaching ipsilateral decompression, anterior column fusion, and posterior stabilization. This procedure is usually accompanied by the placement of bilateral transpedicular screws in the corresponding segment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral screw fixation compared with bilateral fixation in patients diagnosed with low-grade symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent an MI-TLIF technique. METHODS: A prospective and comparative study was performed in 67 patients with grade 1 symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The sample was allocated on both unilateral fixation group (n=33) and bilateral fixation group (n=34). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain, and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Changes over time and differences between the groups were analyzed. Statistical analyses included: Friedman test, Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney's U. A two-tailed P value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: During 1-year of evaluation there were no significant clinical differences between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with grade 1 symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with MI-TLIF with unilateral screw fixation had similar clinical results than those treated with bilateral fixation at 12 months postoperatively.