Clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Article Figures & Data

Table 1

Demographics of patients in clinical series undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Reference	Number of patients in study	Mean age in years (range)	Male/Female	Mean number of follow-up months	Study type
Peng et al, 2009¹⁸	29	54 (26-74)	5/24	24	Prospective
Schizas et al, 2009²⁶	18	45.5 (NA)	NA	22	Retrospective
Dhall et al, 2008²⁵	21	53 (NA)	NA	24	Retrospective
Park et al, 2008¹⁹	40	56 (38-71)	19/21	35	Retrospective
Scheufler et al, 2007²⁰	53	57 (NA)	24/29	16	Retrospective
Beringer et al, 2006²⁴	8	49 (35-63)	NA	9	Retrospective
Deutsch et al, 2006²¹	20	49 (33-55)	12/8	6	Retrospective
Jang et al, 2005²²	23	60 (48-68)	8/15	19	Retrospective
Schwender et al, 2005¹⁵	49	NA (23-80)	19/30	23	Retrospective

Table 2

Postsurgical radiographic outcome data for patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Reference	Number of patients in study	Arthrodesis rate	Graft subsidence
Peng et al, 2009¹⁸	29	^* Grade 1: 80%	0%
		^* Grade 2: 20%
Schizas et al, 2009²⁶	18	83%	5.6%
Dhall et al, 2008²⁵	21	95%	5%
Park et al, 2008¹⁹	40	100%	0%
Scheufler et al, 2007²⁰	53	94%	0%
Beringer et al, 2006²⁴	8	100%	0%
Deutsch et al, 2006²¹	20	65%	0%
Jang et al, 2005²²	23	95%	13%
Schwender et al, 2005¹⁵	49	100%	0%

↵* Bridwell anterior fusion grading system: Grade 1 – evidence of fusion with remodeling and trabaculae present; Grade 2 – evidence of intact graft with incomplete remodeling or incorporation, and without lucency; Grade 3 – evidence of intact graft with lucency both above and below the graft; Grade 4 – evidence of collapsed or resorbed graft and absence of fusion.

Table 3

Postsurgical functional outcome data for patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Reference	Number of patients in study	Functional outcome data
Peng et al, 2009¹⁸	29	Leg pain VAS improved from 7 to 1
		Back pain VAS improved 6.5 to 1
		NASS for neurogenic symptoms improved from 3.6 to 1.2
		NASS for back pain improved from 3.2 to 1.5
		ODI improvement from 45.2 preoperatively to 16.2 at 2
		Significant improvements in SF-36 parameters
Schizas et al, 2009²⁶	18	VAS improved from 7.7 to 3.5
		ODI improved from 55 to 33
Dhall et al, 2008²⁵	21	Modified Prolo score improved from 11 to 19
Park et al, 2008¹⁹	40	Leg pain VAS improved from 65 to 8
		Back pain VAS improved from 52 to 15
		ODI improved from 55 to 16
Scheufler et al, 2007²⁰	53	VAS improved from 5 to 1.5
		Roland-Morris scores improved from 18 to 4 at 8 mos, and to 3 at 16 mos
		AAOS neuro score improved from 33 to 15 at 8 mos, then to 12 at 16 mos
		AAOS physical health and pain score improved from 65 to 22 at 8 mos, then to 18 at 16 months
		AAOS pain disability score improved from 80 to 40 at 8 mos, then to 25 at 16 mos
Beringer et al, 2006²⁴	8	Modified Prolo score improved from 11 to 18
Deutsch et al, 2006²¹	20	VAS improved from 8.3 to 1.4
		ODI improved from 57 to 18
Jang et al, 2005²²	23	Mean NRS score improved from 7.5 to 2.3 for back pain
		Mean NRS score improved from 7.4 to 0.7 for leg pain
		ODI improved 33.1 to 7.6
Schwender et al, 2005¹⁵	49	VAS improved from 7.2 to 2.1, while the ODI improved from 46 to 14

Abbreviations: AAOS, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; NASS, North American Spine Society; NRS, Numeric Rating Score; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; VAS, Visual Analog Scale.