Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2350-7936
Original Article

Trans–Pars Interarticularis Approach for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Efficient, Straightforward, and Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis

Zhao-Quan Liu
1   Departement of Neurosurgery, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
,
Cheng-Ta Hsieh
1   Departement of Neurosurgery, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
2   Departement of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei, Taiwan
3   Departement of Neurosurgery, Sijhih Cathay General Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan
,
Chih-Ju Chang 
1   Departement of Neurosurgery, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
2   Departement of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei, Taiwan
4   Departement of Mechanical Engineering, National Central University, Zhongli District, Taiwan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Lumbar interbody fusion is a commonly applied surgical treatment for spondylolisthesis. For this procedure, various minimally invasive (MIS) approaches have been developed, including posterior lumbar interbody fusion, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion, and anterior lumbar interbody fusion. In this study, we characterized the features of an MIS trans–pars interarticularis lumbar interbody fusion (TPLIF) and compared its surgical outcomes with those of MIS-TLIF.

Methods This study included 89 and 44 patients who had undergone MIS-TPLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively, between September 2016 and December 2022. The following clinical outcomes were analyzed: operative time, blood loss, and hospitalization duration.

Results The average operative time, blood loss, and hospitalization duration for the MIS-TPLIF and MIS-TLIF groups were, respectively, 98.28 and 191.15 minutes, 41.97 and 101.85 mL, and 5.8 and 6.9 days.

Conclusion The MIS-TPLIF approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis or other degenerative diseases involves the use of the commonly available and cost-effective instrument Taylor retractor, thus enabling posterior lumbar interbody fusion to be performed with minimal invasion. This approach also confers the benefits of a short learning curve and an intuitive approach. Our results suggest that although MIS-TPLIF is noninferior to MIS-TLIF, it is easier to learn and perform than MIS-TLIF.

Keywords

posterior lumbar interbody fusion - trans–pars interarticularis lumbar interbody fusion - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - spondylolisthesis - minimally invasive spine surgery


Publication History

Received: 27 January 2024

Accepted: 13 June 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 June 2024

Article published online:
14 October 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Roy-Camille R. Current trends in surgery of the spine. Int Orthop 1989; 13 (02) 81-87
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18 (05) 624-627
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Harms JG, Jeszenszky D. Die posteriore, lumbale, interkorporelle Fusion in unilateraler transforaminaler Technik. Oper Orthop Traumatol 1998; 10 (02) 90-102
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Drury T, Ames SE, Costi K, Beynnon B, Hall J. Degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with neurogenic claudication effects functional performance and self-reported quality of life. Spine 2009; 34 (25) 2812-2817
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine 1994; 19 (22) 2598-2602
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (06) 1683-1688
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine 1999; 24 (10) 1023-1028
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine 1996; 21 (08) 941-944
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 2006; 20 (03) E6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2009; 34 (13) 1385-1389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ahn Y, Lee S, Kim WK, Lee SG. Learning curve for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2022; 31 (12) 3551-3559
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (10) 1780-1784
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Liu X, Wang Y, Qiu G, Weng X, Yu B. A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (01) 43-56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Zhao J, Hou T, Wang X, Ma S. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using one diagonal fusion cage with transpedicular screw/rod fixation. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 (02) 173-177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Bingqian C, Feng X, Xiaowen S. et al. Modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a single cage with unilateral pedicle screws: a retrospective clinical study. J Orthop Surg Res 2015; 10: 98
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Xue Y, Li S, Wang Y. et al. Unilateral modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion combined with contralateral lamina fenestration treating severe lumbarspinal stenosis: a retrospective clinical study. Surg Innov 2023; 30 (01) 73-83
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K. et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2017; 17 (11) 1712-1721
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Wang Y, Zhang Y, Chong F, Zhou Y, Huang B. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via a novel tubular retractor. J Int Med Res 2020; 48 (05) 300060520920090
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Fan Y, Zhou S, Xie T, Yu Z, Han X, Zhu L. Topping-off surgery vs posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 476
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar