Literature DB >> 22426447

Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases.

Jae Chul Lee1, Hae-Dong Jang, Byung-Joon Shin.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Consecutive case series with prospective data collection.
OBJECTIVE: To define and analyze the learning curve for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive TLIF using a unilateral approach has recently been gaining popularity because of its potential for minimizing soft-tissue damage and reducing recovery time. However, a steep learning curve has been described for surgeons first performing this technique.
METHODS: Eighty-six consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who were treated by TLIF were included in the study. Surgeries were performed using a tubular retractor, and a cage was inserted using a unilateral transforaminal approach by a single surgeon. The corresponding segments were fixed with percutaneous pedicle screws. Eighty-three patients were followed up for more than 1 year, and the average follow-up period was 25 months. Single-level TLIF was performed in 60 cases, single-level TLIF plus adjacent-level decompression was performed in 13 cases, and double-level TLIF was performed in 13 cases. Corrected operative time per level, operative blood loss, postoperative blood drainage, total blood loss, and ambulation recovery time were measured. Transfusion rates and complication incidence were also identified. Clinical results were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). The learning curve was assessed using a logarithmic curve-fit regression analysis. In the single-level TLIF group (n = 60), 22 patients were defined as the "early" group (among the first 30 cases of the series), and the subsequent 38 cases were defined as the "late" group for comparison.
RESULTS: Corrected operative time gradually decreased as the series progressed, and an asymptote was reached after about 30 cases. ODI significantly decreased from an average of 24 at the preoperative stage to 10 at the final follow-up. Average VAS scores for lower back pain and radiating pain also significantly decreased from an average of 5.2 to 1.9 and 6.8 to 0.9, respectively. In the single-level TLIF series, operative time was significantly shorter in the late group (183 ± 23 min) than the early group (254 ± 44 min), and blood loss during the operation was significantly reduced in the late group (292 ± 280 mL) compared with the early group (508 ± 278 mL). Ambulation recovery time significantly decreased from 2.4 ± 0.6 days in the early group to 2.0 ± 0.5 in the late group. ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and radiating pain did not differ between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: Although it is not easy to master the minimally invasive TLIF technique, the surgeon's experience with this operation correlated with reduced operation time and blood loss during surgery. After the initial learning curve, this technique could be an effective and reliable option for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22426447     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318252d44b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  51 in total

1.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and degenerative spondylosis: 5-year results.

Authors:  Yung Park; Joong Won Ha; Yun Tae Lee; Na Young Sung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-18       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it?

Authors:  Frederic Jacquot; Daniel Gastambide
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Minimally invasive spine surgery: systematic review.

Authors:  Péter Banczerowski; Gábor Czigléczki; Zoltán Papp; Róbert Veres; Harry Zvi Rappaport; János Vajda
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 3.042

4.  Learning curve and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jin Yang; Chuan Guo; Qingquan Kong; Bin Zhang; Yu Wang; Lifeng Zhang; Hao Wu; Zhiyu Peng; Yuqing Yan; Dongfeng Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Andrew C Kam; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gun Keorochana; Kitipong Setrkraising; Patarawan Woratanarat; Alisara Arirachakaran; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-12-24       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  Short-Term Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Pedicle Screw with Cortical Bone Trajectory Compared with Conventional Trajectory.

Authors:  Yuji Kasukawa; Naohisa Miyakoshi; Michio Hongo; Yoshinori Ishikawa; Daisuke Kudo; Yoichi Shimada
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-06-08

Review 8.  Fluorescence-guided surgery with live molecular navigation--a new cutting edge.

Authors:  Quyen T Nguyen; Roger Y Tsien
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 60.716

9.  Microendoscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: short-term and medium-term outcomes.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Bin Liu; Li-Min Rong; Rui-Qiang Chen; Jian-Wen Dong; Pei-Gen Xie; Liang-Ming Zhang; Feng Feng
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

10.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence.

Authors:  Nai-Feng Tian; Yao-Sen Wu; Xiao-Lei Zhang; Hua-Zi Xu; Yong-Long Chi; Fang-Min Mao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.