Abstract
Background:
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been established as an excellent alternative to the traditional open approach for the treatment of degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine1-3.
Description:
The procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and on a radiolucent table in order to allow for intraoperative fluoroscopy. The procedure is performed through small incisions made over the vertebral levels of interest, typically utilizing either a fixed or expandable type of tubular dilator, which is eventually seated against the facet joint complex4. A laminectomy and/or facetectomy is performed in order to expose the disc space, and the ipsilateral neural elements are visualized5. The end plates are prepared, and an interbody device is placed after the disc is removed. Pedicle screws and rods are then placed for posterior fixation.
Alternatives:
Nonoperative alternatives include physical therapy and corticosteroid injections. Other operative techniques include open TLIF or other types of lumbar fusion approaches, such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral or extreme lateral interbody fusion, or oblique lumbar interbody fusion.
Rationale:
Open TLIF was developed in order to obtain a more lateral approach to the lumbar disc space than was previously possible with PLIF. The goal of this was to minimize the amount of thecal-sac and nerve-root retraction required during PLIF4. Additionally, as the number of patients who required revision after PLIF increased, the need arose for an approach to the lumbar spine that circumvented the posterior midline scarring from previous PLIF surgical sites6. MI-TLIF was introduced to reduce the approach-related paraspinal muscle damage of open TLIF5. Indications for MI-TLIF include most degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine, including disc herniation, low-grade spondylolisthesis, and spinal and foraminal stenosis7. However, MI-TLIF allows for less robust correction of deformity than other minimally invasive approaches; therefore, MI-TLIF may not be as effective in cases of substantial spinal deformity or high-grade spondylolisthesis8.
Expected Outcomes:
MI-TLIF results in significantly less blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital length of stay compared with open TLIF1-3. Although some studies have suggested increased operative time for MI-TLIF9,10, meta-analyses have shown comparable operative times between the 2 techniques1-3. It is thought that the discrepancy in reported operative times is the result of a learning curve and that, once that is overcome, the difference in operative time between the 2 techniques becomes minimal11,12. One disadvantage of MI-TLIF that has remained constant in the literature is its increased intraoperative fluoroscopy time compared with open TLIF3,13. The complication rate has largely been found to be equivalent between open and MI-TLIF1-3 or slightly lower with MI-TLIF14, especially in the hands of an experienced surgeon15. Finally, the fusion rate and improvement in patient outcome scores have also been found to be largely equivalent1-3.
Important Tips:
We suggest placing the ipsilateral pedicle screw after the interbody cage has been inserted.
Fully visualize the Kambin triangle16 prior to performing the facetectomy. Protect the exiting and traversing nerve roots by placing small cottonoids around them and retracting delicately.
Bone removed during facetectomy can be utilized as autograft for the interbody cage.
Avoid removing pedicle bone during decompression.
If central stenosis is present, the neural decompression should be extended medial to the epidural fat so that the dura mater can be visualized all of the way to the contralateral pedicle.
Perform an adequate end plate preparation prior to interbody insertion while being mindful to avoid injuring the end plate, to minimize the risk of future cage subsidence.
Confirm correct placement of the interbody device on intraoperative fluoroscopy.
If bone morphogenic protein is utilized, be careful not to pack too much posteriorly as this may cause nerve irritation.
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
MI-TLIF = minimally invasive TLIF
PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion
ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion
LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion
XLIF = extreme lateral interbody fusion
OLIF = oblique lumbar interbody fusion
DLIF = direct lateral interbody fusion
MRI = magnetic resonance imaging
A/P = anteroposterior
EMG = electromyographic
BMP = bone morphogenic protein
XR = x-ray (radiograph)
OTC = over the counter
DVT = deep vein thrombosis
PE = pulmonary embolism
MI = myocardial infarction
MIS = minimally invasive surgery
OR = operating room
LOS = length of stay
VAS = visual analog scale
ODI = Oswestry Disability Index
M-H = Mantel-Haenszel
RR = risk ratio
CI = confidence interval
NSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Published outcomes of this procedure can be found at: J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):416-27, Neurosurgery. 2015 Dec;77(6):847-74, and Asian Spine J. 2018 Oct;12(5):830-8.
Investigation performed at St. Joseph’s University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey
Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSEST/A424).
References
- 1.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. Mar;24(3):416-27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT. Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015. Dec;77(6):847-74, discussion 874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, Xu HZ, Chi YL, Mao FM. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence. Eur Spine J. 2013. Aug;22(8):1741-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010. Dec 15;35(26)(Suppl):S294-301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003. Aug 1;28(15)(Suppl):S26-35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Harms J, Rolinger H. [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982. May-Jun;120(3):343-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC, 3rd, Wang J, Walters BC, Hadley MN; American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005. Jun;2(6):673-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, Liu JC. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007. Oct;7(4):379-86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009. Jun 1;34(13):1385-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, Anderson WN, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011. May;14(5):598-604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012. Aug 15;37(18):1548-57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009. Dec;33(6):1683-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014. Jun;472(6):1727-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011. Feb;54(1):33-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci. 2011. May;18(5):624-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fanous AA, Tumialán LM, Wang MY. Kambin’s triangle: definition and new classification schema. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019. Nov 29:1-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]