Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2020, Page: 50-58
Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Ahmed Nagaty, Department of Neurosurgery, Ain shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Ashraf Yassin Amer, Department of Orthopedics, Saudi German Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
Ahmed Gamil Hassan, Department of Orthopedics, Saudi German Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
Ahmed Samir Rady, Department of Orthopedics, Saudi German Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
Hatem Sabry, Department of Neurosurgery, Ain shams University, Cairo, Egypt; Department of Neurosurgery, Saudi German Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
Received: Aug. 29, 2020;       Accepted: Sep. 28, 2020;       Published: Oct. 7, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijn.20200402.16      View  29      Downloads  28
Abstract
This study aims to assess the difference between minimal invasive TLIF surgery and conventional TLIF surgery in cases of lytic spondylolisthesis, as regards pain, disability, hospital stay and complications. Lytic Spondylolisthesis patients may require fusion of one or more spinal segments to treat their condition adequately. The chances of achieving a successful lumbar spinal fusion has increased. TLIF technique is gradually being accepted in these cases and widely used by most spine surgeons. Minimal invasive TLIF is a recent trend for spinal fusion. This is a prospective randomized comparative study conducted from March 2016 to December 2018 included forty patients with low grade lytic spondylolisthesis that underwent surgeries. Twenty patients underwent MI-TLIF through percutaneous posterior lumbar pedicular screw fixation, microscopic minimally invasive transformational discectomy and interbody cage fusion (patients group “A”) and another twenty patients underwent traditional open posterior lumbar pedicular screw fixation and TLIF (control group “B”). In our results, both surgical techniques showed improvement in pain and function within 12 months (follow up period), but group A showed statistically significant improvement in pain and function in the 1st three months. Regarding blood loss, need for transfusion and hospital stay, group A showed statistically significant better results. As a conclusion, minimally invasive TLIF is a better option in surgical management of spondylolisthesis especially in the early postoperative period.
Keywords
Spinal Fusion, Spondylolisthesis, Minimal Invasive Spine Surgery, TLIF
To cite this article
Ahmed Nagaty, Ashraf Yassin Amer, Ahmed Gamil Hassan, Ahmed Samir Rady, Hatem Sabry, Minimally Invasive Versus Open TLIF in the Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis, International Journal of Neurosurgery. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2020, pp. 50-58. doi: 10.11648/j.ijn.20200402.16
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Wang MY, Grossman J. Endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion without general anesthesia: initial clinical experience with 1-year follow-up. Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Feb; 40 (2): E13.
[2]
Powers CJ, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive fusion and fixation techniques. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2006 Oct; 17 (4): 477–89.
[3]
Harms J, Rolinger H. [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982 Jun; 120 (3): 343–7.
[4]
Mummaneni PV, Rodts GE. The mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct; 57 (4 Suppl): 256–61; discussion 256-261.
[5]
Foley KT, Gupta SK. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine: preliminary clinical results. J Neurosurg. 2002 Jul; 97 (1 Suppl): 7–12.
[6]
Scheufler K-M, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI. Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery. 2007 Apr; 60 (4 Suppl 2): 203–12; discussion 212-213.
[7]
Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Feb; 18 Suppl: S1-6.
[8]
Li H-J, Ge D-W, Zhang S, Aisikeerbayi A-J, Wang H, He Y-L, et al. Comparative study between mini-open TLIF via Wiltse’s approach and conventional open TLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018; 22 (1 Suppl): 53–62.
[9]
Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg. 2019 Jul 22; 14 (1): 229.
[10]
Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S, et al. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I: Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Dec; 28 (10): E559-564.
[11]
Inamdar DN, Alagappan M, Shyam L, Devadoss S, Devadoss A. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus intertransverse fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg Hong Kong. 2006 Apr; 14 (1): 21–6.
[12]
Logroscino CA, Proietti L, Pola E, Scaramuzzo L, Tamburrelli FC. A minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine instabilities. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2011 May; 20 Suppl 1: S41-45.
[13]
Kim M-C, Chung H-T, Cho J-L, Kim D-J, Chung N-S. Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2011 Oct; 20 (10): 1635–43.
[14]
Foley KT, Gupta SK, Justis JR, Sherman MC. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus. 2001 Apr 15; 10 (4): E10.
[15]
Isaacs RE, Podichetty VK, Santiago P, Sandhu FA, Spears J, Kelly K, et al. Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Aug; 3 (2): 98–105.
[16]
Kotani Y, Abumi K, Ito M, Sudo H, Abe Y, Minami A. Mid-term clinical results of minimally invasive decompression and posterolateral fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws versus conventional approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2012 Jun; 21 (6): 1171–7.
[17]
Raley DA, Mobbs RJ. Retrospective computed tomography scan analysis of percutaneously inserted pedicle screws for posterior transpedicular stabilization of the thoracic and lumbar spine: accuracy and complication rates. Spine. 2012 May 20; 37 (12): 1092–100.
[18]
Smith ZA, Sugimoto K, Lawton CD, Fessler RG. Incidence of lumbar spine pedicle breach after percutaneous screw fixation: a radiographic evaluation of 601 screws in 151 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 Oct; 27 (7): 358–63.
Browse journals by subject