Abstract:Background: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been established as an excellent alternative to the traditional open approach for the treatment of degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine1-3. Description: The procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and on a radiolucent table in order to allow for intraoperative fluoroscopy. The procedure is performed through small incisions made over the vertebral levels of interest, typically utilizing either a fixed or expandable type of tubular dilator, which is eventually seated against the facet joint complex4. A laminectomy and/or facetectomy is performed in order to expose the disc space, and the ipsilateral neural elements are visualized5. The end plates are prepared, and an interbody device is placed after the disc is removed. Pedicle screws and rods are then placed for posterior fixation. Alternatives: Nonoperative alternatives include physical therapy and corticosteroid injections. Other operative techniques include open TLIF or other types of lumbar fusion approaches, such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral or extreme lateral interbody fusion, or oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Rationale: Open TLIF was developed in order to obtain a more lateral approach to the lumbar disc space than was previously possible with PLIF. The goal of this was to minimize the amount of thecal-sac and nerve-root retraction required during PLIF4. Additionally, as the number of patients who required revision after PLIF increased, the need arose for an approach to the lumbar spine that circumvented the posterior midline scarring from previous PLIF surgical sites6. MI-TLIF was introduced to reduce the approach-related paraspinal muscle damage of open TLIF5. Indications for MI-TLIF include most degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine, including disc herniation, low-grade spondylolisthesis, and spinal and foraminal stenosis7. However, MI-TLIF allows for less robust correction of deformity than other minimally invasive approaches; therefore, MI-TLIF may not be as effective in cases of substantial spinal deformity or high-grade spondylolisthesis8. Expected outcomes: MI-TLIF results in significantly less blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital length of stay compared with open TLIF1-3. Although some studies have suggested increased operative time for MI-TLIF9,10, meta-analyses have shown comparable operative times between the 2 techniques1-3. It is thought that the discrepancy in reported operative times is the result of a learning curve and that, once that is overcome, the difference in operative time between the 2 techniques becomes minimal11,12. One disadvantage of MI-TLIF that has remained constant in the literature is its increased intraoperative fluoroscopy time compared with open TLIF3,13. The complication rate has largely been found to be equivalent between open and MI-TLIF1-3 or slightly lower with MI-TLIF14, especially in the hands of an experienced surgeon15. Finally, the fusion rate and improvement in patient outcome scores have also been found to be largely equivalent1-3. Important tips: We suggest placing the ipsilateral pedicle screw after the interbody cage has been inserted.Fully visualize the Kambin triangle16 prior to performing the facetectomy. Protect the exiting and traversing nerve roots by placing small cottonoids around them and retracting delicately.Bone removed during facetectomy can be utilized as autograft for the interbody cage.Avoid removing pedicle bone during decompression.If central stenosis is present, the neural decompression should be extended medial to the epidural fat so that the dura mater can be visualized all of the way to the contralateral pedicle.Perform an adequate end plate preparation prior to interbody insertion while being mindful to avoid injuring the end plate, to minimize the risk of future cage subsidence.Confirm correct placement of the interbody device on intraoperative fluoroscopy.If bone morphogenic protein is utilized, be careful not to pack too much posteriorly as this may cause nerve irritation. Acronyms and abbreviations: TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMI-TLIF = minimally invasive TLIFPLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusionALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionLLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionXLIF = extreme lateral interbody fusionOLIF = oblique lumbar interbody fusionDLIF = direct lateral interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingA/P = anteroposteriorEMG = electromyographicBMP = bone morphogenic proteinXR = x-ray (radiograph)OTC = over the counterDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolismMI = myocardial infarctionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryOR = operating roomLOS = length of stayVAS = visual analog scaleODI = Oswestry Disability IndexM-H = Mantel-HaenszelRR = risk ratioCI = confidence intervalNSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a trans-multifidus approach: a safe and effective alternative to open-TLIF

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

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

Multifidus Muscle Changes and Clinical Effects of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Procedure Versus Conventional Open Approach

Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF) for Treatment of Lumbar Degeneration Disease A Prospective Cohort Study

Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): A Video Technique Guide

Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Via a Novel Tubular Retractor.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Single Segmental Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Minimum Two-Year Follow Up.

Microendoscopy-assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Short-Term and Medium-Term Outcomes.

The Long-term Clinical Effect of Minimal-Invasive TLIF Technique in 1-Segment Lumbar Disease.

Comparison of Mmo-Tlif Via Midline Incision Versus MIS-TLIF Via Wiltse Approach in Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Ligamentum-preserved/Temporary Preserved Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Technical Note and 2-Year Follow-up

Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Microinvasive TLIF:Surgery Method and Early Clinical Outcome

An Updated Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes Comparing Minimally Invasive with Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

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

Quantitative injury of the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with an open approach

Clinical feasibility of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation system

[Comparison of Minimally Invasive Using a Tubular Retraction System Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases].

[Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis Stenosis].