Abstract:Objective To compare the long-term effect between minimally invasive (MIS) and open approaches in one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (O-PLIF) after more than 10 years follow up. Methods All 131 patients (lumbar spine le-sions) in our hospital were randomized into MIS-PLIF group and O-PLIF group from March 2006 to March 2008. In MIS-PLIF group, there are 66 patients, 34 males and 32 females, with the average of 52.3 ± 6.7 years old (range from 40 to 63). In O-PLIF group, there are 65 patients, 29 males and 36 females, with the average of 51.1 ± 6.9 years old (range from 46 to 63). Regarding March 2018 as last follow-up, differences in intervertebral disc height and segmental lordosis restoration of the operation segment , lumbar lordosis restoration, multifidus cross section area (CSA), multifidus atrophy rate, fusion rate, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index(ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association cores (JOA) and postoperative long-term compli-cations were evaluated between the two groups. The related risk factors of postoperative long-term complications were evaluated in further analysis. Results Complete follow-up data were available on 37 patients in MIS-PLIF group and 35 patients in O-PLIF group, with the follow-up rate of 56.1％and 53.8％respectively,and with the mean follow-up time of 134.5 ±8.4 and 137.1±5.8 months respectively. At three time nodes of one year after operation, five years after operation and last follow-up after operation, there were significant differences in lumbar lordosis restoration (one year after operation and last follow-up after operation)( 5.0°± 2.3° vs. 3.9°±1.4°;4.7°±2.4° vs. 3.7°±1.5°), multifidus CSA (965.4±164.9 mm2 vs. 884.9±168.2 mm2;891.1±155.9 mm2 vs. 783.2± 163.0 mm2; 764.8 ± 148.3 mm2 vs. 643.5 ± 150.0 mm2), multifidus atrophy rate (8.5％± 2.5％ vs. 16.6％± 5.8％; 15.6％± 3.5％ vs. 26.2％±7.4％;27.6％±6.5％vs. 39.3％±9.3％), postoperative VAS for back pain (2.2±1.0 vs. 2.9±1.2;1.7±0.9 vs. 2.2±1.0;1.4±1.0 vs. 2.2±1.2), JOA score (22.3±3.8 vs. 19.9±4.2;23.1±4.3 vs. 19.3±3.9;22.4±4.2 vs. 19.6±4.0) and ODI (11.6％±4.8％vs. 22.0％± 7.7％;9.4％±3.9％vs. 12.3％±4.9％;8.6％±4.0％vs. 11.0％±4.6％) between the two groups (P<0.05). However, there were no sig-nificant differences in segmental lordosis, intervertebral height restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration (one year after operation), fusion rate or postoperative VAS for leg pain between MIS-PLIF and O-PLIF(P>0.05). Intractable back pain and adjacent segment disease were the major postoperative long-term complications for MIS-PLIF group (3 cases and 2 cases) and O-PLIF group (10 cas-es and 7 cases), and the difference was statistically significant in the intractable back pain incidence rate ( 8.5％vs. 28.6％,χ2=5.090, P=0.024), but not in the adjacent segment disease(5.4％vs. 20％,χ2=0.002, P=0.061). What's more, patients with intracta-ble back pain suffered more obviously multifidus atrophy than patients without intractable back pain at three time nodes of one year after operation (19.4±4.4％vs. 10.9±5.1％, P<0.05), five years after operation (30.2±5.4％vs. 18.7±6.7％, P<0.05) and last fol-low-up after operation (44.5±5.7％vs. 30.8±8.9％, P<0.05) . Conclusion In the long-term follow up, compared with O-PLIF, MIS-PLIF had advantages in better maintenance of lumbar lordosis, protection of the multifidus muscle, reduced lower back pain, JOA score, ODI score and intractable back pain incidence rate. Multifidus atrophy may be a related risk factor of intractable back pain.

Analysis of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Strategies of Its Microsurgical Reconstruction

A Modified Surgical Technique of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

The anatomical characteristics and the analysis to clinical efficacy about modified minimally invasive surgery TILF by muscle space approach and bilateral fixation and unilateral decompression

Comparative study of oblique lateral approach and posterior fusion in the treatment of grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis

Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury about one-level lumbar posterior intervertebral fusion performed with minimally invasive or conventional open approach

Clinical assessment of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with microendoscopic approach

Modified Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Single Cage with Unilateral Pedicle Screws: a Retrospective Clinical Study

Application of Small Surgical Incision Bilateral Spinous Process in Posterior Single Segment Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disorders

Comparison of Long-Term Effect Between Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches in One-Level Posterior Lumbar Inter-Body Fusion: a 10-12 Year Prospective Study

Clinical Study of Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a unilateral single cage in the degenerative lumbar spine

Clinical comparative analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation

Posterior expanded laminectomy decompression and interbody unilateral pedicle screw fixa-tion in the lumbar spine degenerative diseases

Comparison of Three Different Posterior Fixation Techniques in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: at a Mean Follow Up Time of 46 Months

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Application and potential problem analysis of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar interbody fusion

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation In Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Monocentric Study Of 215 Patients With A Minimum Of 4-Year Follow-Up

Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study

Comparison of lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw.

Minimally Invasive One-Level Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Surgery with Posterior Instrumentation Using a Combination of Pedicle Screw Fixation and Transpedicular Facet Screw Construct.