Cargando…

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome

Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompress...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hartmann, Sebastian, Lang, Anna, Lener, Sara, Abramovic, Anto, Grassner, Lukas, Thomé, Claudius
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9492567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36064875
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01845-w
_version_ 1784793512269578240
author Hartmann, Sebastian
Lang, Anna
Lener, Sara
Abramovic, Anto
Grassner, Lukas
Thomé, Claudius
author_facet Hartmann, Sebastian
Lang, Anna
Lener, Sara
Abramovic, Anto
Grassner, Lukas
Thomé, Claudius
author_sort Hartmann, Sebastian
collection PubMed
description Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompression may contradict MIS techniques. In order to detect differences between both techniques in the short-term, a prospective, controlled study was conducted. Thirty-eight patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease were included in this prospective, controlled study (15 MIS-TLIF group vs. 23 O-TLIF group) after failed conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively, on the first, third, and sixth postoperative day as well as after 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Outcome parameters included blood loss, duration of surgery, pre- and postoperative pain (numeric rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), functionality (Timed Up and Go test [TUG]), disability (Oswestry Disability index [ODI]), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Intraoperative blood loss (IBL) as well as postoperative blood loss (PBL) was significantly higher in the O-TLIF group ([IBL O-TLIF 528 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 213 ml, p = 0.001], [PBL O-TLIF 322 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 30 ml, p = 0.004]). The O-TLIF cohort showed significantly less leg pain postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group ([NRS leg 3rd postoperative day, p = 0.027], [VAS leg 12 weeks post-op, p = 0.02]). The MIS group showed a significantly better improvement in the overall ODI (40.8 ± 13 vs. 56.0 ± 16; p = 0.05). After 3 months in the short-term follow-up, the MIS procedure tends to have better results in terms of patient-reported quality of life. MIS-TLIF offers perioperative advantages but may carry the risk of increased nerve root manipulation with consecutive higher radicular pain, which may be related to the learning curve of the procedure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9492567
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94925672022-09-23 Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome Hartmann, Sebastian Lang, Anna Lener, Sara Abramovic, Anto Grassner, Lukas Thomé, Claudius Neurosurg Rev Research Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompression may contradict MIS techniques. In order to detect differences between both techniques in the short-term, a prospective, controlled study was conducted. Thirty-eight patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease were included in this prospective, controlled study (15 MIS-TLIF group vs. 23 O-TLIF group) after failed conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively, on the first, third, and sixth postoperative day as well as after 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Outcome parameters included blood loss, duration of surgery, pre- and postoperative pain (numeric rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), functionality (Timed Up and Go test [TUG]), disability (Oswestry Disability index [ODI]), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Intraoperative blood loss (IBL) as well as postoperative blood loss (PBL) was significantly higher in the O-TLIF group ([IBL O-TLIF 528 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 213 ml, p = 0.001], [PBL O-TLIF 322 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 30 ml, p = 0.004]). The O-TLIF cohort showed significantly less leg pain postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group ([NRS leg 3rd postoperative day, p = 0.027], [VAS leg 12 weeks post-op, p = 0.02]). The MIS group showed a significantly better improvement in the overall ODI (40.8 ± 13 vs. 56.0 ± 16; p = 0.05). After 3 months in the short-term follow-up, the MIS procedure tends to have better results in terms of patient-reported quality of life. MIS-TLIF offers perioperative advantages but may carry the risk of increased nerve root manipulation with consecutive higher radicular pain, which may be related to the learning curve of the procedure. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-09-06 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9492567/ /pubmed/36064875 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01845-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Hartmann, Sebastian
Lang, Anna
Lener, Sara
Abramovic, Anto
Grassner, Lukas
Thomé, Claudius
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
title Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
title_full Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
title_fullStr Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
title_full_unstemmed Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
title_short Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
title_sort minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9492567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36064875
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01845-w
work_keys_str_mv AT hartmannsebastian minimallyinvasiveversusopentransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionaprospectivecontrolledobservationalstudyofshorttermoutcome
AT langanna minimallyinvasiveversusopentransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionaprospectivecontrolledobservationalstudyofshorttermoutcome
AT lenersara minimallyinvasiveversusopentransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionaprospectivecontrolledobservationalstudyofshorttermoutcome
AT abramovicanto minimallyinvasiveversusopentransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionaprospectivecontrolledobservationalstudyofshorttermoutcome
AT grassnerlukas minimallyinvasiveversusopentransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionaprospectivecontrolledobservationalstudyofshorttermoutcome
AT thomeclaudius minimallyinvasiveversusopentransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionaprospectivecontrolledobservationalstudyofshorttermoutcome