Advertisement

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Daniel Serban
  • Niki Calina
  • Anthony Digiorgio
  • Gabriel Tender
Chapter

Abstract

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive spine operations in the United States. It is also quite difficult to master, since anatomical and pathological variations are common, and the learning surgeon must perform a large number of cases before being able to claim proficiency. Nonetheless, this procedure can be used at all lumbar levels and is probably the most important to learn.

Supplementary material

Video 6.1

Right L5–S1 MI TLIF using the tubular retractor technique. The iliac crest harvester was used to obtain autograft. A “sacral lip” was removed to access the disc space. The rod was deployed through the cranial tower (MP4 88384 kb)

Video 6.2

Left L4–5 MI TLIF using the tubular retractor technique. The contralateral side was decompressed first. The contralateral screws were inserted percutaneously (MP4 112963 kb)

Video 6.3

Right L5–S1 MI TLIF using the pedicle-based retractor technique. The K-wires were first inserted bilaterally using 2 C-arms. The dual-ball rods were inserted on both sides (MP4 61159 kb)

Video 6.4

Left L5–S1 MI TLIF using the two-blade retractor technique. The steps are illustrated in this straightforward case (MP4 20219 kb)

Video 6.5

Left L3–4, 4–5 MI TLIF. This operation was performed early in our experience with MIS fusions. Some of the differences compared to now include: the skin incisions were placed closer to midline, enforcing more dural exposure; the pars was more extensively removed, exposing the underlying exiting nerve; the ipsilateral pedicle screws were cannulated based on direct palpation rather than external anatomical landmarks (MP4 52328 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tender G, Constantinescu A, Conger A, DiGiorgio A. Primary pain generator identification by CT-SPECT in a patient with low back pain: a case report. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:132.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2458-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tender GC, Serban D. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of two techniques. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2014;109:812–21.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang J, et al. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1780–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:2265–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parker SL, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:230–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terman SW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:644–52.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.2.SPINE13794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phan K, Hogan JA, Mobbs RJ. Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2503–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4126-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:1017–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3903-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24:416–27.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.2.SPINE14973.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Virdee JS, Nadig A, Anagnostopoulos G, George KJ. Comparison of peri-operative and 12-month lifestyle outcomes in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional lumbar fusion. Br J Neurosurg. 2017;31:167.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2016.1199790.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang HL, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST quadrant retractor versus open surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Chin Med J. 2011;124:3868–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serban D, Calina N, Tender G. Standard versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7236970.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7236970.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee KH, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Yue WM. Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:E234–40.  https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000089.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Serban
    • 1
  • Niki Calina
    • 1
  • Anthony Digiorgio
    • 2
  • Gabriel Tender
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery“Bagdasar-Arseni” HospitalBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryLouisiana State University Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansUSA
  3. 3.Louisiana State UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations