Literature DB >> 24513660

Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

Kong Hwee Lee1, William Yeo, Henry Soeharno, Wai Mun Yue.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Very few studies have evaluated the learning curve of this technically demanding surgery. We intend to evaluate the learning curve of MIS TLIF with a larger sample size and assess surgical competence based not only on operative time but with perioperative variables, clinical and radiologic outcomes, incidence of complications, and patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2009, the first 90 single-level MIS TLIF, which utilized a consistent technique and spinal instrumentation, performed by a single surgeon at our tertiary institution were studied. Variables studied included operative time, perioperative variables, clinical (Visual Analogue Scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society Scores for neurogenic symptoms) and radiologic outcomes, incidence of complications and patient rating of expectation met, and the overall result of surgery.
RESULTS: The asymptote of the surgeon's learning curve for MIS TLIF was achieved at the 44th case. Comparing the early group of 44 patients to the latter 46, the demographics were similar. For operative parameters, only 3 variables showed differences between the 2 groups: mean operative duration, fluoroscopy duration, and usage of patient-controlled analgesia. At the final follow-up, for clinical outcome parameters, the 2 groups were different in 3 parameters: VAS scores for back, leg pain, and neurogenic symptom scores. For radiologic outcome, both groups showed similar good fusion rates. For complications, none of the MIS TLIF cases were converted to open TLIF intraoperatively. In the early group, there were 3 complications: 1 incidental durotomy and 2 asymptomatic cage migrations; and in the latter group, there was 1 asymptomatic cage migration.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, technical proficiency in MIS TLIF was achieved after 44 surgeries, and the latter patients benefited from shorter operative duration and radiation, less pain, and more relief in their back, leg, and neurogenic symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24513660     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  32 in total

1.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Islam M Elboghdady; Abbas Naqvi; Anton Y Jorgenson; Alejandro Marquez-Lara; Kern Singh
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2014-10

2.  The learning curve of lateral access lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population: a prospective study.

Authors:  Chong Leslie Lich Ng; Boon Chuan Pang; Paul Julius A Medina; Kimberly-Anne Tan; Selvaraj Dahshaini; Li-Zhen Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Accuracy of minimally invasive percutaneous thoracolumbar pedicle screws using 2D fluoroscopy: a retrospective review through 3D CT analysis.

Authors:  Mark J Winder; Paul M Gilhooly
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06

Review 4.  Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar decompressions and fusions.

Authors:  Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Jonathan S Markowitz; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Kelly H Yom; Kern Singh
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-12

Review 5.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): A review of indications, technique, results and complications.

Authors:  Bhavuk Garg; Nishank Mehta
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-01-14

6.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UNILIF): morbidity, clinical and radiological 2-year outcomes of a 66-patient prospective series.

Authors:  H Giorgi; R Prebet; R Andriantsimiavona; P Tropiano; B Blondel; H F Parent
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Learning curve for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yong Ahn; Sol Lee; Woo-Kyung Kim; Sang-Gu Lee
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 2.721

8.  Comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single segmental lumbar spondylolisthesis: minimum two-year follow up.

Authors:  Ai-Min Wu; Zhi-Chao Hu; Xiao-Bin Li; Zhen-Hua Feng; Dong Chen; Hui Xu; Qi-Shan Huang; Yan Lin; Xiang-Yang Wang; Kai Zhang; Jie Zhao; Wen-Fei Ni
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-03

9.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Isthmic Versus Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Dustin H Massel; Benjamin C Mayo; Grant D Shifflett; Daniel D Bohl; Philip K Louie; Bryce A Basques; William W Long; Krishna D Modi; Fady Y Hijji; Ankur S Narain; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30

10.  Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies.

Authors:  Hai Le; Ryan Anderson; Eileen Phan; Joseph Wick; Joshua Barber; Rolando Roberto; Eric Klineberg; Yashar Javidan
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-06-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.