Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single‐Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether treatment with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis‐TLIF) causes patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) to experience less anxiety and better clinical efficacy than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 86 patients, including 46 male patients and 41 female patients, who suffered from single‐segmental lumbar spinal stenosis in our department between January 2016 and January 2018. They were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 46), for patients who underwent open TLIF surgery, and an experimental group (n = 40), for patients who underwent Mis‐TLIF surgery. All patients were evaluated based on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), hospital anxiety depression scale (HADS), fusion rate, and complications (screw misplacement and loosening, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, and delayed wound healing). Patient characteristics were compared within and between groups. RESULTS: The average incision length was 3.64 ± 0.476 cm in the experimental group, which was smaller than that (8.11 ± 2.406 cm) in the control group (P < 0.05). The operation time of the experimental group was a little longer than that of the control group. The intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay in the experimental group were less than those in the control group. The mean preoperative low back pain VAS score was 7.525 ± 1.432 in the experimental group and 7.087 ± 1.799 in the control group (P > 0.05). The low back pain VAS scores on postoperative day 3 and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were 5.000 ± 0.987, 4.075 ± 0.997, 2.150 ± 0.834, and 1.450 ± 0.639 in the experimental group, respectively; these scores were lower than those in the control group (6.870 ± 1.572, P < 0.05; 4.630 ± 1.103, P < 0.05; 2.630 ± 1.103, P < 0.05; and 2.326 ± 1.034, P < 0.05, respectively). There was no obvious difference in the leg pain VAS scores between the two groups at all follow‐up points. The mean preoperative ODI score was 58.700% ± 19.703% in the experimental group and 61.696% ± 17.583% in the control group (P > 0.05). The ODI scores at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 were 25.225% ± 5.554%, 20.150% ± 7.698%, and 16.125% ± 9.565% in the experimental group; these scores were lower than those in the control group (49.130% ± 14.805%, P < 0.05; 34.044% ± 15.148%, P < 0.05; and 29.282% ± 132.567%, P < 0.05, respectively). The mean preoperative HADS score was 14.475 ± 3.113 in the experimental group and 13.391 ± 2.824 in the control group (P > 0.05). However, the mean HADS scores on postoperative day 3 in the experimental group was 8.500 ± 2.000, decreasing obviously compared to the preoperative scores (P < 0.05). The mean postoperative HADS score on postoperative day 3 in the control group was 12.734 ± 1.949, which had not decreased significantly compared to the preoperative score (P > 0.05). The HADS scores in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group on postoperative day 3 (P < 0.05). In the correlation analysis, the incision length was correlated to the HADS scores on postoperative day 3 (r = 0.527, P < 0.05). The HADS scores on postoperative day 3 were positively correlated with the low back pain VAS scores on the same day (r = 0.388, P < 0.05). The HADS scores on postoperative day 3were positively correlated with the ODI scores at 3‐month (r = 0.460, P < 0.05), 6‐month (r = 0.429, P < 0.05), and 12‐month follow up (r = 0.349, P < 0.05). Fusion rates were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no screw misplacement and loosening, infection, or delayed wound healing in either group. The cerebrospinal fluid leakage rate in the control group was higher than that in the experimental group. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing Mis‐TLIF experience less anxiety and have better outcomes than those who undergo open TLIF. The lower level of anxiety experienced by patients undergoing Mis‐TLIF is positively correlated with postoperative VAS and ODI scores.