Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity

Lau, Darryl; Ziewacz, John E.; Park, Paul

doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2012.07.004

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15,32 Minimally invasive TLIF has been applied to the treatment of overweight and obese patients, and prior studies have shown that in such cases the patients obtain beneftsequaltothoseinpatientswithnormalBMI.Ina prospective,single-center,nonrandomizedcontrolclinical study, Wang et al 35 showed that MI TLIF in overweight and obese patients resulted in signifcantly less operating time, less blood loss, and less postoperative back pain comparedwithopenTLIF;thesefndingsaresimilarto those among patients with normal BMI. 12 In addition, in 2 earlier studies (Park et al 24 and Lau et al 17 ), we demonstrated that there was no signifcant difference in the complication rate, 17,24 intraoperative blood loss, 17 or length of hospital stay 17 between obese patients and patients with normal BMI when undergoing MI TLIF. Senker at al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Similarly, in one of our own prior studies, overweight patients were combined with obese patients, resulting in a mean BMI of 30.4 kg/m 2 . 24 The study by Lau et al 17 had a patient cohort with a mean BMI of 37.4 kg/m 2 thatformallymetthedefnitionofClassIIobesity,butit consisted of a small cohort of 9 patients who underwent MI TLIF. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine if all classes of obese patients obtained the same perioperative benefts following MI TLIF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,17 One of the most common surgical techniques using an MI approach is TLIF for the treatment of spondylolisthesis and DDD. 7 The advantages of MI TLIF are less postoperative pain, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays while providing long-term outcomes similar to those for open TLIF.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients

Lau

Khan

Terman

et al. 2013

FOC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has proven to be effective in the treatment of spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease (DDD). Compared with the traditional open TLIF, the MI procedure has been associated with less blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a shorter hospital stay. However, it is uncertain whether the advantages of an MI TLIF also apply specifically to obese patients. This study was dedicated to evaluating whether obese patients reap the perioperative benefits similar to those seen in patients with normal body mass index (BMI) when undergoing MI TLIF. Methods Obese patients—that is, those with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2—who had undergone single-level TLIF were retrospectively identified and categorized according to BMI: Class I obesity, BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2; Class II obesity, BMI 35.0–39.9 kg/m2; or Class III obesity, BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m2. In each obesity class, patients were stratified by TLIF approach, that is, open versus MI. Perioperative outcomes, including intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), complications (overall, intraoperative, and 30-day postoperative), and hospital length of stay (LOS), were compared. The chi-square test, Fisher exact test, or 2-tailed Student t-test were used when appropriate. Results One hundred twenty-seven patients were included in the final analysis; 49 underwent open TLIF and 78 underwent MI TLIF. Sixty-one patients had Class I obesity (23 open and 38 MI TLIF); 45 patients, Class II (19 open and 26 MI); and 21 patients, Class III (7 open and 14 MI). Overall, mean EBL was 397.2 ml and mean hospital LOS was 3.7 days. Minimally invasive TLIF was associated with significantly less EBL and a shorter hospital stay than open TLIF when all patients were evaluated as a single cohort and within individual obesity classes. Overall, the complication rate was 18.1%. Minimally invasive TLIF was associated with a significantly lower total complication rate (11.5% MI vs 28.6% open) and intraoperative complication rate (3.8% MI vs 16.3% open) as compared with open TLIF. When stratified by obesity class, MI TLIF was still associated with lower rates of total and intraoperative complications. This effect was most profound and statistically significant in patients with Class III obesity (42.9% open vs 7.1% MI). Conclusions Minimally invasive TLIF offers obese patients perioperative benefits similar to those seen in patients with normal BMI who undergo the same procedure. These benefits include less EBL, a shorter hospital stay, and potentially fewer complications compared with open TLIF. Additional large retrospective studies and randomized prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients

Lau

Khan

Terman

et al. 2013

FOC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…38 A number of studies have compared outcomes for obese and nonobese patients after TLIF. 6,21,26,29 For example, in one of the largest series, Djurasovic et al 6 reported ODI score improvement of approximately 15, which did not differ between obese and nonobese groups in a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Obese patients had a slightly higher risk of postoperative wound infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients

Terman

Yee

Lau

et al. 2014

SPI

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been demonstrated in previous studies to offer improvement in pain and function comparable to those provided by the open surgical approach. However, comparative studies in the obese population are scarce, and it is possible that obese patients may respond differently to these two approaches. In this study, the authors compared the clinical benefit of open and MI TLIF in obese patients. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study based on review of electronic medical records at a single institution. Eligible patients had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2, were ≥ 18 years of age, underwent single-level TLIF between 2007 and 2011, and outcome was assessed at a minimum 6 months postoperatively. The authors categorized patients according to surgical approach (open vs MI TLIF). Outcome measures included postoperative improvement in visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results A total 74 patients (21 open and 53 MI TLIF) were studied. Groups had similar baseline characteristics. The median BMI was 34.4 kg/m2 (interquartile range 31.6–37.5 kg/m2). The mean follow-up time was 30 months (range 6.5–77 months). The mean improvement in VAS score was 2.8 (95% CI 1.9–3.8) for the open group (n = 21) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.8–3.1) for the MI group (n = 53), which did not significantly differ (unadjusted, p = 0.49; adjusted, p = 0.51). The mean improvement in ODI scores was 13 (95% CI 3–23) for the open group (n = 14) and 15 (95% CI 8–22) for the MI group (n = 45), with no significant difference according to approach (unadjusted, p = 0.82; adjusted, p = 0.68). After stratifying by BMI (< 35 kg/m2 and ≥ 35 kg/m2), there was still no difference in either VAS or ODI improvement between the approaches (both unadjusted and adjusted, p > 0.05). Complications and EBL were greater for the open group than for the MI group (p < 0.05). Conclusions Obese patients experienced clinically and statistically significant improvement in both pain and function after undergoing either open or MI TLIF. Patients achieved similar clinical benefit whether they underwent an open or MI approach. However, patients in the MI group experienced significantly decreased operative blood loss and complications than their counterparts in the open group.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, MI-TLIF has been reported to be associated with either decreased or equivalent rates of perioperative complications when compared to open TLIF [21][22][23]. Less is known regarding the long-term patient reported outcomes as two year follow-up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of obesity on patient-reported outcome measures after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

McAnany¹,

Overley²,

Andelman³

et al. 2015

Integr Obesity Diabetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity

Cited by 38 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients

The effect of obesity on patient-reported outcome measures after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About