Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis
- 253 Downloads
We aimed to quantify the interbody bone graft area following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) and investigate their correlations with rates of fusion, complications, and clinical outcomes.
Patients undergoing TLIF of 1 or 2 levels between October 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively included. Fusion and bone graft areas were assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 6 months postoperatively. The bone graft area ratio was defined as the bone graft area divided by the average endplate area. The distributions of bone graft area within the discs were also recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires.
In total, 77 disc levels in 57 patients were analyzed. The fusion rate was 79.1% in the open group and 82.4% in the MIS group (p = 0.718). Clinical outcomes of both groups improved significantly. Changes in VAS and ODI scores at 12 months postoperatively were comparable between groups. Bone graft area ratio was not significantly different between the two groups (open, 38 ± 10.8%; MIS, 38.1 ± 9.0%, p = 0.977). Analysis of bone graft distribution revealed that the contralateral-dorsal part of the disc had the lowest bone graft area. The bone graft area ratio was significantly higher in the solid union group (39.2 ± 10.4%) than in the non-solid union group (33.5 ± 6.4%, p = 0.048).
The fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF.
KeywordsTLIF MIS Bone graft area Endplate preparation Fusion rate Clinical outcome
We thank Hsin-Yi Huang from the Biostatistics Task Force, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, for the statistical assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any potential conflict of interests.
- 4.de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, Caelers I, van Hemert WLW, de Bie RA, van Santbrink H (2017) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 17:1712–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S, Silvestre MD, Boriani S, Greggi T (2015) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disk disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E559–564. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Satake K, Ando K, Kobayashi K, Shinjo R, Yagi H, Hida T, Ito K, Ishikawa Y, Tsushima M, Matsumoto A, El Zahlawy H, Yamaguchi H, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N (2014) Volumetric change in interbody bone graft after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a prospective study. Eur Spine J 23:2144–2149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3410-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Lee JH, Lee JH, Park JW, Lee HS (2011) Fusion rates of a morselized local bone graft in polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion by quantitative analysis using consecutive three-dimensional computed tomography scans. Spine J 11:647–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.04.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW (2008) Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J 8:570–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.03.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, Jiang F, Xu N, Ju W, Zhu X, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li M (2013) Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery 72 (1 Suppl Operative):21–26. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182742a69
- 18.Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW (2007) Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Closkey RF, Parsons JR, Lee CK, Blacksin MF, Zimmerman MC (1993) Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:1011–1015Google Scholar
- 20.Kanemura T, Ishikawa Y, Matsumoto A, Yoshida G, Sakai Y, Itoh Z, Imagama S, Kawakami N (2011) The maturation of grafted bone after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an interbody carbon cage: a prospective five-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:1638–1645. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B12.26063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rihn JA, Gandhi SD, Sheehan P, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Albert TJ, Anderson DG (2014) Disc space preparation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of minimally invasive and open approaches. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1800–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3479-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar