Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up

European Spine Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2857-2863

  Rodríguez Vela, Javier ^a   Lobo Escolar, Antonio ^a,b   Joven, Eduardo ^c   Muñoz Marín, Javier ^a   Herrera, Antonio ^a,b,d   Velilla, José ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO MIGUEL SERVET   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO ARAGONÉS DE CIENCIAS DE LA SALUD   (Spain)

^c Hospital C Barbastro   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Degenerative disc disease; Lumbar fusion; Minimally invasive; Prospective; TLIF

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISTAL PARESTHESIA; DURA MATER TEAR; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISEASE; LEG PAIN; LIMB WEAKNESS; LOW BACK PAIN; LOW BACK PAIN OUTCOME INSTRUMENT; MALE; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NORTH AMERICAN SPINE SOCIETY INSTRUMENT; OPERATION DURATION; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PEDICLE SCREW; PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION DEVICE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RETRACTOR; SCIATICA; SHORT FORM 36; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SPINE FUSION; STANDING; SURGICAL PATIENT; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WALKING; WEIGHT LIFTING;

ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; HYPESTHESIA; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LENGTH OF STAY; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCIATICA; SPINAL FUSION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84890551236     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: 14320932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2853-y     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90-102. doi: 10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7
2. Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343-347. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1051624
3. Rouben D, Casnellie M, Ferguson M (2011) Long-term durability of minimal invasive posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:288-296. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f9a60a
4. Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garcés Ambrossi GL, Parker SL, Sciubba DM, Bydon A, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF (2011) Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity. Neurol Res 33:38-42. doi: 10.1179/016164110X12681290831289
5. Tsutsumimoto T, Shimogata M, Ohta H, Misawa H (2009) Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction. Spine 34:1923-1928. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a9d28e
6. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA (2010) An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 12:694-699. doi: 10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09621
7. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:479-484. doi: 10.1097/BSD. 0b013e3182055cac
8. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD (2003) Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 28:S26-S35. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E
9. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 18:S1-S6
10. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20:E6
11. Park Y, Ha JW (2007) Comparison of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with a minimally invasive approach or a traditional open approach. Spine 32:537-543. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000256473.49791.f4
12. Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xianggian F (2010) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine 35:1615-1620. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3
13. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19:1780-1784. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z
14. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int. 1:12. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.63905
15. Rodríguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven-Aliaga E, Herrera A, Vicente J, Suñen E, Loste A, Tabuenca A (2009) Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18:1194-1201. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0
16. Logroscino CA, Proietti L, Pola E, Scaramuzzo L, Tamburrelli FC (2011) A minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine instabilities. Eur Spine J 20:S41-S45. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1762-1
17. Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) 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 9:560-565. doi: 10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142
18. Kim CW (2010) Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 35:S281-S286. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022d32
19. Sarasqueta C, Gabaldon O, Iza I, Béland F, Paz PM (2005) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the NASS outcomes instrument in Spanish patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 14:586-594. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0871-5
20. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741-749
21. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940-2952
22. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160-164
23. Alonso J, Prieto L, Anto JM (1995) The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc) 104:771-776
24. Haro H, Maekawa S, Hamada Y (2008) Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. Spine J 8:380-384. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee. 2007.01.010
25. Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR (2005) Minimally invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 14:887-894. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0941-3