Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration following single?segment minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Jun Jia,Xinyu Liu,Suomao Yuan,Yonghao Tian,Jun Yan,Wanlong Xu,Xingshuai Gao,Yiwei Zhao,Wubo Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2352.2019.12.006
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective To compare the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus traditional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of L 4,5 single?segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and explore the risk factors of ASDeg. Methods All of 115 patients with LSS who were treated by the same group of doctors from 2009 to 2013, with a minimum follow?up of 5 years. Thirty?eight patients underwent minimally invasive trans?foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS?TLIF) and 77 patients underwent traditional TLIF. Standing radiographs at the preopera?tive period and the final follow?up were assessed. Radiological parameters included lumbar lordosis (LL), fused segment angle (FSA), disc height (DH) and range of motion (ROM). Babu classification was used to identify facet joint violation (FJV) in patients at 5?year follow?up. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to visual analog scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Associa?tion (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Student's t?test, Chi?square test, and non?parametric test were used as the main statistical methods. Results The mean age of MIS?TLIF group was 58.2±8.8 years, and that of TLIF group was 54.7±11.2 years, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. The mean follow?up time was 64.5±3.8 months in the MIS?TLIF group and 63.9±3.3 months in the TLIF group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. There were 17 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis in MIS?TLIF group (44.7%) and 35 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis in TLIF group (45.5%), and there was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference in DH and ROM of L 3,4, L 4,5, L5S1 between the two groups before operation. There was no significant difference in VAS, JOA and ODI scores between the two groups before operation. The VAS, JOA and ODI scores were significantly improved at the last follow?up compared with those before operation. After 5?year follow?up, 56 cases (48.7%) had ASDeg. The incidence of ASDeg was 31.6% in MIS?TLIF group and 57.1% in TLIF group, and there was statistical differences between the two groups (χ2=6.656,P<0.01). Among them, 32 cases only had upper segment ASDeg (6 cases in MIS?TLIF group, 26 cases in TLIF group), 19 cases only had lower segment ASDeg (6 cases in MIS?TLIF group, 13 cases in TLIF group), and 5 cases had both upper and lower ASDeg (5 cases in the TLIF group). The DH of adjacent segments decreased after operation, but the loss of DH in MIS?TLIF group was smaller than that in TLIF group, including L 3,4 segments (-4.9%±6.4% vs-8.7%±7.2%, t=-2.761, P<0.01), L5S1 segment (-4.7%±9.8% vs-10.5%± 11.7%, t=-2.623, P<0.01). The ROM of adjacent segments increased in both groups, but the increase of ROM in MIS?TLIF group was smaller than that in TLIF group, including L 3,4 segments (1.1°± 1.8°vs 2.3°± 2.5°, t=-3.122, P<0.01), L5S1 segment (0.9°± 1.9°vs 1.8°±1.9°, t=-2.353, P<0.01). The incidence of FJV was 54.2% in patients with ASDeg in MIS?TLIF group and 47.7% in patients with ASDeg in TLIF group. Chi?square analysis showed that FJV was related to ASDeg in both groups (χ2=3.869,P <0.05). Conclusion Both of the two surgical methods have good clinical effects on L 4,5 single?segment LSS. The incidence of AS?Deg after MIS?TLIF is lower than that of TLIF. FJV is a risk factor for ASDeg.