Abstract:Objective: To compare the effectiveness and changes of sagittal spino-pelvic parameters between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of the low-degree isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: Between May 2012 and May 2013, 86 patients with single segmental isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) were treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (minimally invasive group) in 39 cases, and by open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in 47 cases (open group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, degree of lumbar spondylolisthesis, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The following sagittal spino-pelvic parameters were compared between 2 groups before and after operation: the percentage of slipping (PS), intervertebral height, angle of slip (AS), thoracolumbar junction (TLJ), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), spino-sacral angle (SSA), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI). Pearson correlation analysis of the changes between pre- and post-operation was done. Results: Primary healing of incision was obtained in all patients of 2 groups. The postoperative hospital stay of minimally invasive group [(5.1 ± 1.6) days] was significantly shorter than that of open group [(7.2 ± 2.1) days] (t = 2.593, P = 0.017). The patients were followed up 11-20 months (mean, 15 months). The reduction rate was 68.53% ± 20.52% in minimally invasive group, and was 64.21% ± 30.21% in open group, showing no significant difference (t = 0.725, P = 0.093). The back and leg pain VAS scores, and ODI at 3 months after operation were significantly reduced when compared with preoperative ones (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative other sagittal spino-pelvic parameters were significantly improved (P < 0.05) except PI (P > 0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The correlation analysis showed that ODI value was related to the SVA, SSA, PT, and LL (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion can significantly improve the sagittal spino-pelvic parameters in the treatment of low-degree isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The reconstruction of SVA, SSA, PT, and LL are related to the quality of life.

[Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis by Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Microendoscopic Surgery].

[Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis by Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion].

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

Is Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Superior to Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis? A Retrospective Study

[Treatment of Degenerative Disc Disease by Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion].

Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Reduction For Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Mobile Microendoscopic Discectomy Technique

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Traumatic Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery combined with mini-incision OLIF and anterolateral screws rod fixation vs. MIS-TLIF for surgical treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis

Minimally invasive percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation combined with microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases

Efficacy evaluation of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Spondylolisthesis Using a Combination of Microendoscopic Discectomy and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

[Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Assisted with Microscope in Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease].

Evaluating the efficacy and suggesting technical optimizations for endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion across different lumbar spondylolisthesis types

Clinical research for minimal transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via Quadrant invasive system in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Treating Traumatic Lumbosacral Spondylolisthesis Using Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Three Years Follow Up.

Preliminary report on minimally invasive unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal degenerative disease

Comparison of O-arm Navigation and Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

Short term outcome of microendoscopic decompression and interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar instability

Clinical research of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative disorders of lumbar spine

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterior Open-Surgery in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

[COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS AND CHANGE OF SAGITTAL SPINO-PELVIC PARAMETERS BETWEEN MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL AND CONVENTIONAL OPEN POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSIONS IN TREATMENT OF LOW-DEGREE ISTHMIC LUMBAR SPONDYLOLISTHESIS]