Surgical Strategies for Successful Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (성공적인 최소침습 경추간공 요추체간 유합술을 위한 수술전략)

Yung Park (박융); Se-Jun Park (박세준); Jae-Young Hong (홍재영); 구기형

Surgical Strategies for Successful Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery
Abbr : J Kor Spine Sur
2016, 23(4), pp.251-261
Publisher : Korean Society Of Spine Surgery
Research Area : Medicine and Pharmacy > Orthopedic Surgery

Yung Park ¹, Se-Jun Park ², Jae-Young Hong ³, 구기형 ⁴

¹연세대학교 의과대학 국민건강보험일산병원 정형외과
²성균관대학교
³고려대학교
⁴동국대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Study Design: Literature review. Objectives: The aim of this study was to demonstrate surgical strategies for successful minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Summary of Literature Review: Although many studies have reported the benefits and disadvantages of minimally invasive TLIF, few have described surgical strategies to improve the success rate or to reduce complications. Materials and Methods: We searched for studies reporting the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive TLIF, and analyzed the optimal indications, technical pitfalls, and tips for successful surgical outcomes. Results: The ideal candidate for minimally invasive TLIF is a patient with single or 2-level low-grade adult degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Incomplete decompression, dura tearing, nerve root injury, and implant-related complications were found to be the most commonly reported adverse events, especially in the early periods of a surgeon’s experience. Precise positioning for skin incision and tube insertion, complete neural decompression, proper interbody preparation for bone graft and cage insertion, and the correct placement of percutaneous pedicle screws are critical strategies for successful surgical outcomes. Fully understanding the surgical pitfalls and tips described in this review is also important to avoid potential complications. Conclusions: It is imperative not only to carry out a comprehensive preoperative evaluation and proper patient selection, but also to perform meticulous surgical procedures with thoughtful considerations of potential pitfalls, in order to improve the success rate and to reduce the complications of minimally invasive TLIF.

KEYWORDS

Minimally invasive, Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), Patient selection, Pitfalls and tips, Surgical strategy

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

[journal] Foley KT / 2003 / Minimally invasive lumbar fusion / Spine 28 : 26~35

[journal] Brodano GB / 2015 / Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I: Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery / J Spinal Disord Tech 28 : E559~E564

[journal] Seng C / 2013 / Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study / Spine 38 : 2049~2055

[journal] Sclafani JA / 2014 / Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review / Clin Orthop Relat Res 472 : 1711~1717

[journal] Park Y / 2014 / Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and degenerative spondylosis: 5-year results / Clin Orthop Relat Res 472 : 1813~1823

[journal] Phan K / 2015 / Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis / Eur Spine J 24 : 1017~1030

[journal] Khan NR / 2015 / Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Metaanalysis / Neurosurgery 77 : 847~874

[journal] Isaacs RE / 2005 / Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation / J Neurosurg Spine 3 : 98~105

[journal] Schwender JD / 2005 / Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF):technical feasibility and initial results / J Spinal Disord Tech 18 : 1~6

[journal] Selznick LA / 2009 / Minimally invasive interbody fusion for revision lumbar surgery: technical feasibility and safety / J Spinal Disord Tech 22 : 207~213

[journal] Holly LT / 2006 / Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications / Neurosurg Focus 20 : E6~

[journal] 박영 / 2015 / Perioperative Surgical Complications and Learning Curve Associated with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single-Institute Experience / Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery / 대한정형외과학회 7(1) : 91~96

[journal] Wang J / 2014 / Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center / Spine J 14 : 2078~2084

[journal] Karikari IO / 2010 / Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes / Spine 35 : 294~301

[journal] Rahman M / 2008 / Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy:the minimally invasive versus the 'classic' open approach / Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51 : 100~105

[book] Benzel EC / 2006 / Neurological Complications of Spinal Surgery in the Spine / Saunders Elsevier : 1441~1453

[journal] Cammisa FP Jr / 2000 / Incidental durotomy in spine surgery / Spine 25 : 2663~2667

[book] Campbell PG / 2011 / Spinal Dural Injuries in the Spine / Saunders Elsevier : 1720~1727

[journal] Tian NF / 2013 / Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence / Eur Spine J 22 : 1741~1749

[journal] Antonacci MD / 2001 / Neurologic complications after lumbar spine surgery / J Am Acad Orthop Surg 9 : 137~145

[book] Strothman D / 2011 / Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Fusion Techniques / WB Saunders Co : 1020~1040

[journal] Lee JC / 2012 / Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases / Spine 37 : 1548~1557

[journal] Ringel F / 2006 / Minimally invasive transmuscular pedicle screw fixation of the thoracic and lumbar spine / Neurosurgery 59 : 361~366

[journal] O’Driscoll SW / 1991 / The cubital tunnel and ulnar neuropathy / J Bone Joint Surg Br 73 : 613~617

[journal] Jutte PC / 2002 / Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations / Eur Spine J 11 : 594~598

[journal] Kreppel D / 2003 / Spinal hematoma: a literature survey with meta-analysis of 613 patients / Neurosurg Rev 26 : 1~49

[journal] Kou J / 2002 / Risk factors for spinal epidural hematoma after spinal surgery / Spine 27 : 1670~1673

[journal] Amiri AR / 2013 / Postoperative spinal epidural hematoma (SEH): incidence, risk factors, onset, and management / Spine J 13 : 134~140

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.03