Clinical feasibility of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation system
Peng QI,Ke-ya MAO,Song-hua XIAO,Xi-feng ZHANG,Yong-gang ZHANG,Zheng WANG,Yan WANG,Geng CUI
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-252X.2015.11.016
2015-01-01
Abstract:Objective To compare clinical outcomes of the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion ( MIS-TLIF ) with intraoperative computed tomography ( iCT ) navigation system, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion ( MIS-TLIF ) and conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion ( COTLIF ) for single-level lumbar fusion surgery, by which to evaluate clinical effects and feasibility of the MIS-TLIF by assistance of iCT navigation system.Methods From April, 2009 to September, 2011, 45 patients diagnosed as lumbar disc herniation ( LDH ) were treated by one team of surgeons at a single institution. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with intraoperative computed tomography ( iCT-MIS-TLIF )was conducted in 11 cases. MIS-TLIF was conducted in 15 cases. COTLIF was conducted in 19 cases. Patient’s condition was considered and the treatment was voluntarily chosen by patients. Detailed procedures, preoperative and intraoperative images were illustrated. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative blood loss ( drain ), mean hospital stay and postoperative ambulation period in 3 groups were compared. Oswestry disability index ( ODI ), visual analogue scale ( VAS ) and X-ray 3 days, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively were applied to evaluate clinical effects. Considering the influence of CT guidance on the operation time, the time cost in scanning and registration were recorded.Results The mean follow-up period was 24 months. There were no signiifcant differences in routine clinical data, VAS and ODI. No complications occurred in all 45 patients. The operation time in iCT-MIS-TLIF group was signiifcantly higher than MIS-TLIF group and COTLIF group (P<0.05 ). No signiifcant differences existed in mean operative blood loss, mean postoperative blood loss ( drain ), mean postoperative hospital stay and mean postoperative ambulation time (P>0.05 ) in iCT-MIS-TLIF group and MIS-TLIF group, which were signiifcantly lower than COTLIF group (P<0.05 ). VAS and ODI results in the follow-up were signiifcantly improved postoperatively in 3 groups. VAS results of iCT-MIS-TLIF group and MIS-TLIF group 3days postoperatively and ODI results postoperatively were signiifcantly lower than COTLIF group. There were no signiifcant differences at other time points. No signiifcant VAS or ODI differences existed in iCT-MIS-TLIF group and MIS-TLIF group at different time points. There were no signiifcant differences in the evaluation of fusion rate by X-ray. The mean automatic image registration time was 45.5 seconds, the mean CT scanning time was 9 seconds, the mean time-out for intraoperative scanning was 5.8 minutes, and the mean total number of CT scans per patient was 3.1 times.Conclusions Minimally invasive approach causes less change in multiifdus, less postoperative back pain and functional disability than conventional open approach. Preliminary experience with the ifrst 11 patients conifrms the feasibility of iCT scanning and integrated navigation system in the minimally invasive lumbar instrumentation. iCT-MIS-TLIF and MIS-TLIF have similar good long-term clinical outcomes and high fusion rates compared with COTLIF with the additional beneifts of less early postoperative back pain and functional disability, early rehabilitation, and shorter hospitalization. No signiifcant differences exist in iCT-MIS-TLIF and MIS-TLIF although with radiation exposure. However, for complicated anatomical structure, iCT navigation system provides better accuracy and safety for posterior spinal instrumentation.