scholarly journals Dynamic stabilization for L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with more than 2 years of follow-up

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. E3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao-Hung Kuo ◽  
Peng-Yuan Chang ◽  
Jau-Ching Wu ◽  
Hsuan-Kan Chang ◽  
Li-Yu Fay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Time Point

OBJECTIVE In the past decade, dynamic stabilization has been an emerging option of surgical treatment for lumbar spondylosis. However, the application of this dynamic construct for mild spondylolisthesis and its clinical outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the management of single-level spondylolisthesis at L4–5. METHODS This study retrospectively reviewed 91 consecutive patients with Meyerding Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4–5 who were managed with surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: DDS and MI-TLIF. The DDS group was composed of patients who underwent standard laminectomy and the DDS system. The MI-TLIF group was composed of patients who underwent MI-TLIF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at each time point of evaluation. Evaluations included radiographs and CT scans for every patient for 2 years after surgery. RESULTS A total of 86 patients with L4–5 spondylolisthesis completed the follow-up of more than 2 years and were included in the analysis (follow-up rate of 94.5%). There were 64 patients in the DDS group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group, and the overall mean follow-up was 32.7 months. Between the 2 groups, there were no differences in demographic data (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) or preoperative clinical evaluations (e.g., visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores). The mean estimated blood loss of the MI-TLIF group was lower, whereas the operation time was longer compared with the DDS group (both p < 0.001). For both groups, clinical outcomes were significantly improved at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery compared with preoperative clinical status. Moreover, there were no differences between the 2 groups in clinical outcomes at each evaluation time point. Radiological evaluations were also similar and the complication rates were equally low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS At 32.7 months postoperation, the clinical and radiological outcomes of DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. DDS might be an alternative to standard arthrodesis in mild lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike fusion, dynamic implants have issues of wearing and loosening in the long term. Thus, the comparable results between the 2 groups in this study require longer follow-up to corroborate.

Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Taneichi ◽  
Kota Suda ◽  
Tomomichi Kajino ◽  
Akira Matsumura ◽  
Hiroshi Moridaira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Column Support ◽  
The Mean

Object There are no published reports of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which two Brantigan I/F cages were placed per level through a single portal to achieve bilateral anterior-column support. The authors describe such a surgical technique and evaluate the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Methods Data obtained in 86 (93.5%) of the first 92 consecutive patients who underwent the procedure were retrospectively reviewed; the minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system. Disc height, disc angle, cage positioning in the axial plane, and fusion status were radiographically evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33.8 months. The mean improvement in the JOA score was 77.2%. Fusion was successful in 93% of the cases. According to the Farfan method, the mean anterior and posterior disc heights increased from 20.2 and 16.9% preoperatively to 35.9 and 22.7% at follow up, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean disc angle increased from 4.8° preoperatively to 7.5° at last follow-up examination (p < 0.01). Two cages were correctly placed to achieve bilateral anterior-column support in greater than 85% of the cases. The following complications occurred: hardware migration in two patients and deep infection cured by intravenous antibiotic therapy in one patient. Conclusions Unilateral TLIF involving the placement of two Brantigan cages per level led to good clinical results. Two Brantigan cages were adequately placed via a single portal, and reliable bilateral anterior-column support was achieved. Although the less invasive unilateral approach was used, the outcomes were as good as those in many reported series of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in which the Brantigan cages were placed via the bilateral approach.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Decompression Alone for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Kai-Hong Chan ◽  
Erica F Bisson ◽  
Mohamad Bydon ◽  
Steven D Glassman ◽  
Kevin T Foley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Abstract INTRODUCTION The optimal minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. This study compares patient reported outcomes (PRO) following MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 608 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis of whom 143 underwent MIS [72 MI-TLIF (50.3%) and 71 MIS decompressions (49.7%)]. Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse-plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MI-TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). In total, 24-mo follow-up parameters were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) Back Pain, NRS Leg Pain, EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire, and North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Questionnaire. Multivariate models were constructed adjusting for baseline patient and surgical factors. RESULTS The mean age of the MIS cohort was 67.1 ± 11.3 yr (MI-TLIF 62.1 yr vs MIS decompression 72.3 yr) and consisted of 79 (55.2%) women (MI-TLIF 55.6% vs MIS decompression 54.9%). The proportions reaching 24-mo follow-up were similar (MI-TLIF 83.3% and MIS decompression 84.5%; P = .85). MI-TLIF was associated with higher blood loss (108.8 vs 33.0 mL, P < .001), longer operative times (228.2 vs 101.8 min, P < .001) and length of hospitalization (2.9 vs 0.7 d, P < .001). MI-TLIF was associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate (14.1% vs 1.4%, P = .004). Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, and EQ-5D at 24 mo (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, MI-TLIF was associated with superior ODI change (ß = −7.59; 95% CI [−14.96 to −0.23]; P = .04), NRS back pain change (ß = −1.54; 95% CI [−2.78 to −0.30]; P = .02), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 0.32; 95% CI [0.12-0.82]; P = .02). CONCLUSION For symptomatic, single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with a 10-fold lower reoperation rate and superior outcomes for disability, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared to MIS decompression alone.

scholarly journals Dynesys dynamic stabilization–related facet arthrodesis

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. E4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Yu Fay ◽  
Peng-Yuan Chang ◽  
Jau-Ching Wu ◽  
Wen-Cheng Huang ◽  
Chun-Hao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Japanese Orthopaedic Association ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Clinical Evaluations ◽  
Radiological Data ◽  
Spinal Segments ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Limited Motion

OBJECTIVE Dynamic stabilization devices are designed to stabilize the spine while preserving some motion. However, there have been reports demonstrating limited motion at the instrumented level of the lumbar spine after Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS). The causes of this limited motion and its actual effects on outcomes after DDS remain elusive. In this study, the authors investigate the incidence of unintended facet arthrodesis after DDS and clinical outcomes. METHODS This retrospective study included 80 consecutive patients with 1- or 2-level lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent laminectomy and DDS. All medical records, radiological data, and clinical evaluations were analyzed. Imaging studies included pre- and postoperative radiographs, MR images, and CT scans. Clinical outcomes were measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Furthermore, all patients had undergone postoperative CT for the detection of unintended arthrodesis of the facets at the indexed level, and range of motion was measured on standing dynamic radiographs. RESULTS A total of 70 patients (87.5%) with a mean age of 64.0 years completed the minimum 24-month postoperative follow-up (mean duration 29.9 months). Unintended facet arthrodesis at the DDS instrumented level was demonstrated by CT in 38 (54.3%) of the 70 patients. The mean age of patients who had facet arthrodesis was 9.8 years greater than that of the patients who did not (68.3 vs 58.5 years, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including VAS back and leg pain, ODI, and JOA scores between patients with and without the unintended facet arthrodesis. Furthermore, those patients older than 60 years were more likely to have unintended facet arthrodesis (OR 12.42) and immobile spinal segments (OR 2.96) after DDS. Regardless of whether unintended facet arthrodesis was present or not, clinical evaluations demonstrated improvement in all patients (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS During the follow-up of more than 2 years, unintended facet arthrodesis was demonstrated in 54.3% of the patients who underwent 1- or 2-level DDS. Older patients (age > 60 years) were more likely to have unintended facet arthrodesis and subsequent immobile spinal segments. However, unintended facet arthrodesis did not affect the clinical outcomes during the study period. Further evaluations are needed to clarify the actual significance of this phenomenon.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Attractive Option for Select Failed Backs

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind G. Kulkarni ◽  
Shashidhar Bangalore Kantharajanna ◽  
Abhilash N. Dhruv
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Percentage Change ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Vas Scores ◽  
The Mean

<sec><title>Study Design</title><p>Retrospective case series.</p></sec><sec><title>Purpose</title><p>To compare minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) outcomes in primary and revision surgeries.</p></sec><sec><title>Overview of Literature</title><p>Revision spinal fusion is often associated with an increased risk of approach-related complications. Patients can potentially benefit from the decreased approach-related morbidity associated with MI-TLIF.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Sixty consecutive MI-TLIF patients (20 failed back [Fa group], 40 primary [Pr group]) who underwent surgery between January 2011 and May 2012 were reviewed after Institutional Review Board approval to compare operative times, blood loss, complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain before surgery and at the last follow-up.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Nineteen revision surgeries were compared with 36 primary surgeries. One failed back and four primary patients were excluded because of inadequate data. The mean follow-up times were 28 months and 24 months in the Pr and Fa groups, respectively. The mean pre- and postoperative ODI scores were 53.18 and 20.23 in the Pr group and 52.01 and 25.72 in the Fa group, respectively (ODI percentage change: Pr group, 60.36%±29.73%; Fa group, 69.32%±13.72%; <italic>p</italic>=0.304, not significant). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores for back pain were 4.77 and 1.75 in the Pr group and 4.1 and 2.0 in the Fa group, respectively, and the percentage changes were statistically significant (VAS back pain percentage change: Pr group, 48.78±30.91; Fa group, 69.32±13.72; <italic>p</italic>=0.027). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores for leg pain were 6.52 and 1.27 in the Pr group and 9.5 and 1.375 in the Fa group, respectively (VAS leg pain percentage change: Pr group, 81.07±29.39; Fa group, 75.72±15.26; <italic>p</italic>=0.538, not significant). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss and no complications.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusions</title><p>MI-TLIF outcomes were comparable between primary and revision surgeries. The inherent technique of MI-TLIF is particularly suitable for select failed backs because it exploits the intact paramedian corridor.</p></sec>

The modified frailty index and patient outcomes following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery for single-level degenerative spine disease

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Ziev B. Moses ◽  
Seok Yoon Oh ◽  
Ricardo B. V. Fontes ◽  
Harel Deutsch ◽  
John E. O’Toole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Frailty Index ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
Modified Frailty Index

OBJECTIVE The modified frailty index (mFI) is a simple tool that measures physiological reserve based on a thorough history and physical examination. Its use has been validated in several surgical specialties, including spinal deformity surgery. Prior research has suggested no significant differences in clinical outcomes between elderly and nonelderly patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The authors sought to investigate the use of the mFI in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and the relationship between frailty scores and clinical outcomes. METHODS A retrospective chart review was conducted on 198 patients who underwent a single-level TLIF over a 60-month period at a single institution. For all patients, an mFI score was computed incorporating a set of 11 clinical factors to assess preexisting comorbidities and functional status. Clinical follow-up and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scores were obtained at baseline and regular intervals of 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year following surgery. RESULTS Patients were grouped according to their level of frailty: no frailty (mFI = 0), mild frailty (mFI = 0.09), moderate frailty (mFI = 0.18), and severe frailty (mFI ≥ 0.27). One-way ANOVA revealed increasing levels of frailty to be associated with an increased rate of complications, from 10.3% to 63.6%. In addition, increasing levels of frailty were associated with longer hospital length of stay (LOS), from 3.1 days to 6.5 days, and lower rates of disposition to home. At the 1-year follow-up, increased levels of frailty were associated with worse HRQOL measures. CONCLUSIONS Increasing mFI score was associated with higher morbidity, longer inpatient LOS, and a lower probability of discharge to home in patients undergoing single-level TLIF. Consideration of the mFI may help surgeons improve decision-making across the spectrum of patients who are at risk from frailty.

scholarly journals Radiological adjacent-segment degeneration in L4–5 spondylolisthesis: comparison between dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao-Hung Kuo ◽  
Wen-Cheng Huang ◽  
Jau-Ching Wu ◽  
Tsung-Hsi Tu ◽  
Li-Yu Fay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Disc Degeneration ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Dynamic Stabilization ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Secondary Surgery

OBJECTIVEPedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization has been an alternative to conventional lumbar fusion for the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, the true effect of dynamic stabilization on adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) remains undetermined. Authors of this study aimed to investigate the incidence of ASD and to compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).METHODSThe records of consecutive patients with Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone surgical management at L4–5 in the period from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery performed: Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) group and MI-TLIF group. Pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations, including radiography, CT, and MRI studies, were compared. Adjacent discs were evaluated using 4 radiological parameters: instability (antero- or retrolisthesis), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification), endplate degeneration (Modic classification), and range of motion (ROM). Clinical outcomes, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were also compared.RESULTSA total of 79 patients with L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in the analysis. During a mean follow-up of 35.2 months (range 24–89 months), there were 56 patients in the DDS group and 23 in the MI-TLIF group. Prior to surgery, both groups were very similar in demographic, radiological, and clinical data. Postoperation, both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, and JOA scores) at each time point of evaluation. There was a lower chance of disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification) of the adjacent discs in the DDS group than in the MI-TLIF group (17% vs 37%, p = 0.01). However, the DDS and MI-TLIF groups had similar rates of instability (15.2% vs 17.4%, respectively, p = 0.92) and endplate degeneration (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.30) at the cranial (L3–4) and caudal (L5–S1) adjacent levels after surgery. The mean ROM in the cranial and caudal levels was also similar in the two groups. None of the patients required secondary surgery for any ASD (defined by radiological criteria).CONCLUSIONSThe clinical improvements after DDS were similar to those following MI-TLIF for L4–5 Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at 3 years postoperation. According to radiological evaluations, there was a lower chance of disc degeneration in the adjacent levels of the patients who had undergone DDS. However, other radiological signs of ASD, including instability, endplate degeneration, and ROM, were similar between the two groups. Although none of the patients in the present series required secondary surgery, a longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be necessary to corroborate the protective effect of DDS against ASD.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rongqing Qin ◽  
Tong Wu ◽  
Hongpeng Liu ◽  
Bing Zhou ◽  
Pin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Slip Ratio ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Time Point

AbstractThis was a retrospective study. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS). 81 patients with LDS grades 1 and 2 treated in our spinal department from January 2014 to July 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The MIS-TLIF group included 23 males and 11 females, while the TO-TLIF group included 29 males and 18 females. Follow-up points were set at 7 days, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months postoperatively and the last follow-up. Various clinical and radiological indicators were used to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety between the two procedures. 8 cases (3 in the MIS-TLIF group and 5 in the TO-TLIF group) were loss of follow-up after discharge. And the remaining 73 patients were followed up for at least 2 years. No statistically significant difference was observed in the terms of age, sex, BMI, slippage grade, and surgical segments. The MIS-TLIF group had a longer operation and fluoroscopy time compared with the TO-TLIF group. But the MIS-TLIF group was associated with less blood loss, ambulation time, hospital stay, and time of return to work. In each group, significant improvement were observed in BP-VAS, ODI and vertebral slip ratio at any time-point of follow-up when compared with the preoperative condition. When the time-point of follow-up was less than 1 year, the MIS-TLIF group had significant advantages in the BP-VAS and ODI compared with TO-TLIF group. But no significant difference was observed in the BP-VAS and ODI at either 12 month follow-up or the last follow-up. Besides, no statistical difference was detected in vertebral slip ratio at any time-point of follow-up between the two groups. Successful intervertebral bone fusion was found in all patients and no significant difference was found in the incidence of total complications. Thus, we considered that MIS-TLIF and TO-TLIF both achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy in the treatment of low-grade single-segment LDS. But MIS-TLIF appears to be a more efficacious and safe technique with reduced tissue damage, less blood loss and quicker recovery.

scholarly journals Extended interbody fusion using cortical bone trajectory screws vs. traditional pedicle screws in the treatment of adjacent segment disease after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws: a retrospective case control study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Song ◽  
Dong lin Ren ◽  
Shuai Han ◽  
Feng Zhang ◽  
Jian Wang
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgical ◽  
Post Operation ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background To present two minimally invasive surgical techniques using cortical bone trajectory screws with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (CBT-PLIF) and traditional pedicle screws and a domino system with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TPS-Domino-TLIF) for adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion surgery, and compare the postoperative radiographic and clinical outcomes between the two techniques for ASD. Methods Of the 36 patients included in this study, 16 patients received CBT-PLIF and the other 20 patients received TPS-Domino-TLIF. Patient demographics, surgical data, complications, radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results The surgical duration of TPS-Domino-TLIF was significantly shorter than that of CBT-PLIF (p < 0.001). There was less estimated blood loss (EBL) and a lower frequency of intra-operative fluoroscopy in TPS-Domino-TLIF as compared with CBT-PLIF (p < 0.001). The lumbar lordotic angle was improved both at immediate post-operation (p = 0.006) and the last follow-up (p = 0.007) in TPS-Domino-TLIF group as compared with CBT-PLIF group. The mean inter-vertebral height in TPS-Domino-TLIF group was significantly larger than that in CBT-PLIF group at immediate post-operation (p = 0.007) and the last follow-up (p = 0.005). The clinical outcomes in terms of the mean VAS-back, VAS-leg and ODI were improved significantly postoperatively in both groups. Conclusions As a more minimally invasive surgical technique for ASD, TPS-Domino-TLIF could be considered a viable alternative to the midline fusion technique using CBT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document