RESEARCH PROGRESS IN COMPARISON OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

SU Kai , GUO Ying , ZHANG Zhongmin , JIN Dadi.

Department of Orthopaedics, the 3rd Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University &;
Academy of Orthopaedics of Guangdong Province, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510630, P.R.China. Corresponding author: ZHANG Zhongmin, E-mail: nfzzm@163.com;

Corresponding author：

Keywords：

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Minimally invasive surgery; Open surgery; Comparative research

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.20130300

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.

Citation： SU Kai,GUO Ying,ZHANG Zhongmin,JIN Dadi.. RESEARCH PROGRESS IN COMPARISON OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013, 27(11): 1386-1389. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20130300 Copy

1.	Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg, 1953, 10(2): 154-168.
2.	Hodgson AR, Stock FE. Anterior spinal fusion a preliminary communication on the radical treatment of Pott’s disease and Pott’s paraplegia. Br J Surg, 1956, 44(185): 266-275.
3.	Moskowitz A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am, 2002, 33(2): 359-366.
4.	Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(15 Suppl): S26-35.
5.	Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J, 2012, 21(11): 2265-2270.
6.	Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(6): 1683-1688.
7.	Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2009, 34(13): 1385-1389.
8.	Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int, 2010, 1: 12.
9.	Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(17): 1615-1620.
10.	Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine, 2008, 9(6): 560-565.
11.	Epstein NE. How often is minimally invasive minimally effective: what are the complication rates for minimally invasive surgery? Surg Neurol, 2008, 70(4): 386-389.
12.	Ebata S, Sato H, Orii H, et al. Risk management in posterior spinal endoscopic surgery in lumbar diseases. J Orthop Sci, 2013, 18(3): 369-373.
13.	Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(26): 2273-2281.
14.	Kuriyama N, Ito H. Electromyographic functional analysis of the lumbar spinal muscles with low back pain. J Nippon Med Sch, 2005, 72(3): 165-173.
15.	Min SH, Kim MH, Seo JB, et al. The quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open surgery. Asian Spine J, 2009, 3(2): 89-95.
16.	Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(9): 1018-1023.
17.	Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl), 2011, 124(23): 3868-3874.
18.	Adogwa O, Johnson K, Min ET, et al. Extent of intraoperative muscle dissection does not affect long-term outcomes after minimally invasive surgery versus open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. Surg Neurol Int, 2012, 3(Suppl 5): S355-361.
19.	Hu Y, Leung HB, Lu WW, et al. Histologic and electrophysiological changes of the paraspinal muscle after spinal fusion: an experimental study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(13): 1418-1422.
20.	Payer M. “Minimally invasive” lumbar spine surgery: a critical review. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2011, 153(7): 1455-1459.
21.	Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18 Suppl: S1-6.
22.	Dasenbrock HH, Juraschek SP, Schultz LR, et al. The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. J Neurosurg Spine, 2012, 16(5): 452-462.
23.	Epstein NE. Minimally invasive/endoscopic vs “open” posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Surg Neurol, 2009, 71(3): 330-331.
24.	Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1994, 19(22): 2598-2602.
25.	Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1999, 24(10): 1023-1028.
26.	Styf JR, Willen J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1998, 23(3): 354-358.
27.	Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, et al. Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction? Neurosurgery, 2004, 54(6): 1413-1420.
28.	Taylor H, Mcgregor AH, Medhi-Zadeh S, et al. The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2002, 27(24): 2758-2762.

1. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg, 1953, 10(2): 154-168.
2. Hodgson AR, Stock FE. Anterior spinal fusion a preliminary communication on the radical treatment of Pott’s disease and Pott’s paraplegia. Br J Surg, 1956, 44(185): 266-275.
3. Moskowitz A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am, 2002, 33(2): 359-366.
4. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(15 Suppl): S26-35.
5. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J, 2012, 21(11): 2265-2270.
6. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(6): 1683-1688.
7. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2009, 34(13): 1385-1389.
8. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int, 2010, 1: 12.
9. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(17): 1615-1620.
10. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine, 2008, 9(6): 560-565.
11. Epstein NE. How often is minimally invasive minimally effective: what are the complication rates for minimally invasive surgery? Surg Neurol, 2008, 70(4): 386-389.
12. Ebata S, Sato H, Orii H, et al. Risk management in posterior spinal endoscopic surgery in lumbar diseases. J Orthop Sci, 2013, 18(3): 369-373.
13. Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R. Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(26): 2273-2281.
14. Kuriyama N, Ito H. Electromyographic functional analysis of the lumbar spinal muscles with low back pain. J Nippon Med Sch, 2005, 72(3): 165-173.
15. Min SH, Kim MH, Seo JB, et al. The quantitative analysis of back muscle degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion: comparison of minimally invasive and conventional open surgery. Asian Spine J, 2009, 3(2): 89-95.
16. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(9): 1018-1023.
17. Wang HL, Lu FZ, Jiang JY, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J (Engl), 2011, 124(23): 3868-3874.
18. Adogwa O, Johnson K, Min ET, et al. Extent of intraoperative muscle dissection does not affect long-term outcomes after minimally invasive surgery versus open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. Surg Neurol Int, 2012, 3(Suppl 5): S355-361.
19. Hu Y, Leung HB, Lu WW, et al. Histologic and electrophysiological changes of the paraspinal muscle after spinal fusion: an experimental study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(13): 1418-1422.
20. Payer M. “Minimally invasive” lumbar spine surgery: a critical review. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2011, 153(7): 1455-1459.
21. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2005, 18 Suppl: S1-6.
22. Dasenbrock HH, Juraschek SP, Schultz LR, et al. The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. J Neurosurg Spine, 2012, 16(5): 452-462.
23. Epstein NE. Minimally invasive/endoscopic vs “open” posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Surg Neurol, 2009, 71(3): 330-331.
24. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1994, 19(22): 2598-2602.
25. Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1999, 24(10): 1023-1028.
26. Styf JR, Willen J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1998, 23(3): 354-358.
27. Datta G, Gnanalingham KK, Peterson D, et al. Back pain and disability after lumbar laminectomy: is there a relationship to muscle retraction? Neurosurgery, 2004, 54(6): 1413-1420.
28. Taylor H, Mcgregor AH, Medhi-Zadeh S, et al. The impact of self-retaining retractors on the paraspinal muscles during posterior spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2002, 27(24): 2758-2762.

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

RESEARCH PROGRESS IN COMPARISON OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content