Introduction: Symptomatic spondylolisthesis patients may benefit from surgical decompression and stabilization. The standard (S) technique is a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Newer, minimally invasive (MI) techniques seem to provide similar results with less morbidity. However, prospective studies comparing S versus MI TLIF are rare.
Methods: Patients with at least 6 months of symptoms and image-confirmed low-grade spondylolisthesis were enrolled, at a single academic institution, between 2011 and 2015. The patients were randomized to either S or MI TLIF. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcome measures included length of operation, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and fusion rates at 1 year. Complications were also recorded.
Results: Forty patients were enrolled in each group. There was no crossover between groups. The age was 50.12 +/-11.09 years in the S TLIF group and 51.3 +/-9.36 years in the MI TLIF group. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss in the S versus MI TLIF group were 297 +/-101 versus 323 +/-85 minutes and 417 +/-211 versus 351 +/-198 ml, respectively. There were 4 transfusions in the S TLIF and 3 transfusions in the MI TLIF group. The patients were discharged after surgery at 4.12 +/-0.88 days for the S TLIF group and 1.92 +/-0.52 days for the MI TLIF group. The ODI improved from 37 +/-6 to 11 +/-6 in the S TLIF group (ODI difference: 26 +/-7) and from 38 +/-7 to 11 +/-6 in the MI TLIF group (ODI difference: 26 +/-8). In both groups, the fusion was considered solid (Grade I) in 36 (90%) and partial (Grade II) in 4 (10%) patients at 1 year. There were no reoperations for pseudarthrosis or any other postoperative complication. There were 2 superficial wound infections in the standard TLIF group, which resolved with oral antibiotic treatment alone.
Conclusions: The standard and minimally invasive TLIF in patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes at 1 year. The patients undergoing MI TLIF had a shorter hospital stay. Both surgical techniques yielded good results at 1 year.
Patient Care: The MI TLIF technique may offer shorter hospitalization time than the standard technique.
Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the local anatomy for open and MI TLIF
2. Understand the MI TLIF surgical technique
3. Understand the benefits of MI TLIF technique