BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-accepted surgical technique for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions and spinal deformity. The TLIF procedure can be performed open or using minimally invasive techniques. While several studies have found that minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) has advantages over open TLIF procedures with less blood loss, postoperative pain and hospital length of stay, opponents of the minimally invasive technique cite the lack of restoration of lumbar lordosis as a major drawback. With the increasing awareness of restoring sagittal alignment parameters in degenerative and deformity procedures, surgeons should understand the capabilities of different procedures to achieve surgical goals. To our knowledge, few studies have specifically studied the radiographic restoration of lumbar lordosis after MI-TLIF procedures. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature describing the sagittal lumbar radiographic parameter changes after MI-TLIF. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, systematic review was performed. With the assistance of a medical librarian, a highly-sensitive search strategy formulated on 1/19/2018 utilized the following search terms: "minimally invasive procedures," "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion," "lumbar interbody fusion," "diagnostic imaging," "radiographs," "radiography," "x-rays," "lordosis," "lumbar vertebrae," "treatment," "outcome," and "lumbosacral" using Boolean operators 'AND' and 'OR'. Three databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library). An online system (www.covidence.org) was used to standardize article review. All studies were independently analyzed by two investigators and discrepancies mitigated by a third reviewer. Study selection for each cycle was Yes/No/Maybe. Cycles were: (1) (Title/Abstract); (2) (Full Text); (3) (Extraction). Inclusion criteria were: (1) All study designs, (2) MI-TLIF procedures, (3) Reporting total lumbar lordosis (LL) and/or segmental lordosis (SL) pre- and postoperatively. Exclusion criteria were: (1) non MI-TLIF procedures (ALIF, XLIF, LLIF, conventional TLIF, OLIF), (2) No reported LL or SL. RESULTS: The search yielded 4,036 results with 836 duplicates leaving 3,200 studies for review. Cycle 1 eliminated 3,153 studies as irrelevant, thus, 47 were eligible for full-text review. Cycle 2 excluded 31 studies for No English full text (9), Oral/Poster (8), Wrong intervention/outcome (10), Duplicate listing (2), Full text not available (1), Literature review (1) resulting in 16 included studies. Study designs were: Randomized-controlled trial (3), Case series (6) and Retrospective (7). Mean # of subjects were 32.0 (range 8-95). Weighted-mean LL was 39.6°±9.2 (range 28-57) and postoperative LL was 45.0°±7.4 (range 36-67) with a LL post-pre difference of 5.2°±5.9 (range -7 to 15). Weighted-mean preoperative SL was 12.7°±4.3 (range 5-21) and postoperative SL was 15.0°±4.5 (range 5-22) with a SL post-pre difference of 2.1°±1.7 (range 0-8). CONCLUSIONS: The current literature on MI-TLIF and restoration of LL/SL is limited to 16 published studies, 44% of which are retrospective. The published evidence supporting LL and SL restoration with MI-TLIF is sparse with variable results. This systematic review demonstrates the need for future high-level studies to fully elucidate the capabilities of MI-TLIF procedures for restoring lumbar and segmental lordosis.
BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-accepted surgical technique for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions and spinal deformity. The TLIF procedure can be performed open or using minimally invasive techniques. While several studies have found that minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) has advantages over open TLIF procedures with less blood loss, postoperative pain and hospital length of stay, opponents of the minimally invasive technique cite the lack of restoration of lumbar lordosis as a major drawback. With the increasing awareness of restoring sagittal alignment parameters in degenerative and deformity procedures, surgeons should understand the capabilities of different procedures to achieve surgical goals. To our knowledge, few studies have specifically studied the radiographic restoration of lumbar lordosis after MI-TLIF procedures. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature describing the sagittal lumbar radiographic parameter changes after MI-TLIF. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, systematic review was performed. With the assistance of a medical librarian, a highly-sensitive search strategy formulated on 1/19/2018 utilized the following search terms: "minimally invasive procedures," "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion," "lumbar interbody fusion," "diagnostic imaging," "radiographs," "radiography," "x-rays," "lordosis," "lumbar vertebrae," "treatment," "outcome," and "lumbosacral" using Boolean operators 'AND' and 'OR'. Three databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library). An online system (www.covidence.org) was used to standardize article review. All studies were independently analyzed by two investigators and discrepancies mitigated by a third reviewer. Study selection for each cycle was Yes/No/Maybe. Cycles were: (1) (Title/Abstract); (2) (Full Text); (3) (Extraction). Inclusion criteria were: (1) All study designs, (2) MI-TLIF procedures, (3) Reporting total lumbar lordosis (LL) and/or segmental lordosis (SL) pre- and postoperatively. Exclusion criteria were: (1) non MI-TLIF procedures (ALIF, XLIF, LLIF, conventional TLIF, OLIF), (2) No reported LL or SL. RESULTS: The search yielded 4,036 results with 836 duplicates leaving 3,200 studies for review. Cycle 1 eliminated 3,153 studies as irrelevant, thus, 47 were eligible for full-text review. Cycle 2 excluded 31 studies for No English full text (9), Oral/Poster (8), Wrong intervention/outcome (10), Duplicate listing (2), Full text not available (1), Literature review (1) resulting in 16 included studies. Study designs were: Randomized-controlled trial (3), Case series (6) and Retrospective (7). Mean # of subjects were 32.0 (range 8-95). Weighted-mean LL was 39.6°±9.2 (range 28-57) and postoperative LL was 45.0°±7.4 (range 36-67) with a LL post-pre difference of 5.2°±5.9 (range -7 to 15). Weighted-mean preoperative SL was 12.7°±4.3 (range 5-21) and postoperative SL was 15.0°±4.5 (range 5-22) with a SL post-pre difference of 2.1°±1.7 (range 0-8). CONCLUSIONS: The current literature on MI-TLIF and restoration of LL/SL is limited to 16 published studies, 44% of which are retrospective. The published evidence supporting LL and SL restoration with MI-TLIF is sparse with variable results. This systematic review demonstrates the need for future high-level studies to fully elucidate the capabilities of MI-TLIF procedures for restoring lumbar and segmental lordosis.