Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 2095–2102 | Cite as

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

  • Yu-Cheng Yao
  • Hsi-Hsien Lin
  • Po-Hsin Chou
  • Shih-Tien Wang
  • Ming-Chau ChangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

The fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

TLIF MIS Bone graft area Endplate preparation Fusion rate Clinical outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6002_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (324 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 324 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14:551–558.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:337–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Chrastil J, Patel AA (2012) Complications associated with posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:283–291.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-05-283 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ (2015) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24:1017–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Sclafani JA, Kim CW (2014) Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1711–1717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3495-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee MJ, Mok J, Patel P (2018) Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 26:124–131.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00756 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar N, Judith MR, Kumar A, Mishra V, Robert MC (2005) Analysis of stress distribution in lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1731–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Hung PI, Chang MC, Chou PH, Lin HH, Wang ST, Liu CL (2017) Is a drain tube necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery? Eur Spine J 26:733–737.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4672-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Wu RH, Fraser JF, Hartl R (2010) Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2273–2281.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cd42cc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Ames CP, Acosta FL, Jr., Chi J, Iyengar J, Muiru W, Acaroglu E, Puttlitz CM (2005) Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E562–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Tatsumi R, Lee YP, Khajavi K, Taylor W, Chen F, Bae H (2015) In vitro comparison of endplate preparation between four mini-open interbody fusion approaches. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):372–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3708-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Selby MD, Clark SR, Hall DJ, Freeman BJ (2012) Radiologic assessment of spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 20:694–703.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-11-694 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics and TraumatologyTaipei Veterans General HospitalTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, School of MedicineNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations