Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I

Abstract

Mini-TLIF is a safe and efficient procedure and, when correctly and carefully performed, can reach good results, similar to those obtained with traditional open surgical techniques, even though it may require a longer surgical time at least during the first stages of the learning curve. Reduced surgical invasiveness, short hospital stay, and limited blood loss represent the major advantages of minimally invasive technique.

Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review

“…Mini open TLIF DDD, spondylolisthesis 40 60 Seng et al [57] 2013 TLIF DDD, spondylolisthesis 40 40 Pelton et al [58] 2012 TLIF DDD, spondylolisthesis 33 33 Singh et al [59] 2014 TLIF DDD, spondylolisthesis 33 33 Brodano et al [60] 2013…”

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications

“…The articles included initial learning cases, while oTLIF is familiar to surgeons. Brodano [11] divided the mTLIF group of patients into chronologically distinct equal subgroups (15 early cases vs. 15 later cases); there was a statistically significant difference in operative time (3.2 hours for the 15 early cases, 1.8 hours for the 15 later cases). So, if the surgeon masters the skills and gains adequate experience in mTLIF, the operative time becomes almost equal to that in the oTLIF group.…”

“…Almost all the studies [10][11][12] , [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] reporting mTLIF required a longer operative time than oTLIF. The concept of a minimally invasive procedure taking longer than its open equivalent is not surprising.…”

“…The operating time for the mTLIF was ranged from 116 to 390 minutes, compared with 102 to 365 minutes for oTLIF, the operating time tended to be longer in the mTLIF group than the oTLIF group (n = 11 studies) [10][11][12][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. The estimated blood loss was generally and significantly lower in the mTLIF group, ranging from 51 to 578 ml in mTLIF and 225 to 961 ml in oTLIF, respectively (n = 13 studies) [10][11][12][13][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23].…”

“…The articles that included revision surgery (8) or more than a single level treated (6) or without the complications were also excluded. Eventually, 14 studies which met our inclusion criteria were included in the present systematic review [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. The selection process for articles included in the review is shown in Fig.…”