Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion techniques vary among surgeons. One decision point is whether to perform a unilateral facetectomy (UF), a unilateral facetectomy plus partial contralateral facetectomy (UF/PF), or a complete bilateral facetectomy (CBF). The authors therefore compared the biomechanical benefits of all 3 types of facetectomies to determine which approach produces improved biomechanical outcomes.
Seven human cadaveric specimens (L3–S1) were potted and prepped for UF, with full facet removal, hemilaminectomy, discectomy, and pedicle screw placement. After distraction, a fixed interbody spacer was placed, and compression was performed. A final fixation configuration was performed by locking the rods across the screws posteriorly with bilateral compression. Final lordosis angle and change and foraminal height were measured, and standard nondestructive flexibility tests were performed to assess intervertebral range of motion (ROM) and compressive stiffness. The same procedure was followed for UF/PF and CBF in all 7 specimens.
All 3 conditions demonstrated similar ROM and compressive stiffness. No statistically significant differences occurred with distraction, but CBF demonstrated significantly greater change than UF in mean foraminal height after bilateral posterior compression (1.90 ± 0.62 vs 1.00 ± 0.45 mm, respectively, p = 0.04). With compression, the CBF demonstrated significantly greater mean ROM than the UF (2.82° ± 0.83° vs 2.170° ± 1.10°, p = 0.007). The final lordosis angle was greatest with CBF (3.74° ± 0.70°) and lowest with UF (2.68° ± 1.28°). This finding was statistically significant across all 3 conditions (p ≤ 0.04).
Although UF/PF and CBF may require slightly more time and effort and incur more risk than UF, the potential improvement in sagittal balance may be worthwhile for select patients.
ABBREVIATIONSCBF = complete bilateral facetectomy; MIS = minimally invasive spine; PEEK = polyetheretherketone; PF = partial contralateral facetectomy; ROM = range of motion; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; UF = unilateral facetectomy.
Correspondence Laura A. Snyder: c/o Neuroscience Publications, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ. email@example.com.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online May 10, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE18942.Disclosures Dr. Snyder is a consultant for Globus Medical and has received research funding from Medtronic.
Jin-TaoQYuTMeiWXu-DongTTian-JianZGuo-HuaS: Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J24:1058–10652015
Jin-TaoQ, YuT, MeiW, Xu-DongT, Tian-JianZ, Guo-HuaS, : Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. 24:1058–1065, 201510.1007/s00586-015-3890-525820353)| false
LeeCKParkJYZhangHY: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a single interbody cage and a tubular retraction system: technical tips, and perioperative, radiologic and clinical outcomes. J Korean Neurosurg Soc48:219–2242010
LeeCK, ParkJY, ZhangHY: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a single interbody cage and a tubular retraction system: technical tips, and perioperative, radiologic and clinical outcomes. 48:219–224, 201010.3340/jkns.2010.48.3.219)| false
Perez-OrriboL, KalbS, ReyesPM, ChangSW, CrawfordNR: Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. 38:635–641, 201310.1097/BRS.0b013e318279a95e23104197)| false