Clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a modified posterior spinous process–splitting approach for lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study

Guanyi LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by Guanyi Liu in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
,
Lihua HuDepartment of Orthopedics, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by Lihua Hu in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
,
Feng ShenDepartment of Orthopedics, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by Feng Shen in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
,
Yong HuDepartment of Orthopedics, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by Yong Hu in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
, and
Weihu MaDepartment of Orthopedics, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by Weihu Ma in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
View More View Less
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $384.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $624.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $384.00
USD  $624.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

In the conventional posterior approach to the lumbar spine for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), the paravertebral muscles are stripped from the spinous process. The authors developed a novel surgical procedure in which TLIF was performed via a modified spinous process–splitting (SPS) approach that enabled the preservation of the attachment of the paravertebral muscles to the spinous process. The SPS TLIF group comprised 52 patients with lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgery using a modified SPS TLIF technique, whereas the control group comprised 54 patients who underwent conventional TLIF. Compared with the control group, the SPS TLIF group had a significantly shorter operation time, smaller intra- and postoperative blood loss volumes, and shorter hospital stay and time to ambulation (p < 0.05). The SPS TLIF group had a lower mean visual analog scale score for back pain than the control group on both postoperative day 3 and at 2 years postoperatively (p < 0.05). Follow-up MRI showed changes in the paravertebral muscles in 46 of 54 patients (85%) in the control group and 5 of 52 patients (10%) in the SPS TLIF group (p < 0.001). This novel technique may be a useful alternative to the conventional posterior approach for TLIF.

ABBREVIATIONS

JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; SPS = spinous process splitting; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; VAS = visual analog scale.
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1

    Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15 suppl):S26-S35.

  • 2

    Heemskerk JL, Oluwadara Akinduro O, Clifton W, Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Abode-Iyamah KO. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Spine J. 2021;21(12):20492065.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chatani K. A novel surgical approach to the lumbar spine involving hemilateral split-off of the spinous process to preserve the multifidus muscle: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(5):694699.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Gejo R, Matsui H, Kawaguchi Y, Ishihara H, Tsuji H. Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(10):10231028.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Hatta Y, Shiraishi T, Sakamoto A, et al. Muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression for the lumbar spine: a minimally invasive new procedure for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(8):E276E280.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(22):25982602.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Khalifeh JM, Massie LW, Dibble CF, et al. Decompression of lumbar central spinal canal stenosis following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2021;34(8):E439E449.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Cho DY, Lin HL, Lee WY, Lee HC. Split-spinous process laminotomy and discectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a preliminary report. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):229239.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kanbara S, Yukawa Y, Ito K, Machino M, Kato F. Surgical outcomes of modified lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(4):353357.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Kawakami M, Nakao S, Fukui D, Kadosaka Y, Matsuoka T, Yamada H. Modified Marmot operation versus spinous process transverse cutting laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):E1461E1468.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kurogochi D, Uehara M, Yui M, et al. Comparison of spinous process-splitting laminectomy versus posterolateral fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(2):447454.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Nomura H, Yanagisawa Y, Arima J, Oga M. Clinical outcome of microscopic lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):187194.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Tanaka S, Wada K, Kumagai G, et al. Comparison of short-term clinical results and radiologic changes between two different minimally invasive decompressive surgical methods for lumbar canal stenosis: lumbar spinous process splitting laminectomy and trans-interspinous lumbar decompression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021;46(21):E1136E1145.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Watanabe K, Hosoya T, Shiraishi T, Matsumoto M, Chiba K, Toyama Y. Lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(5):405408.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Ikegami T, et al. Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(1):5158.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Moskowitz A. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002;33(2):359366.

  • 17

    Inoue S, Kataoka O, Tajima T, et al. Assessment of treatment for low back pain. J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 1986;60:393394.

  • 18

    Mori E, Okada S, Ueta T, et al. Spinous process-splitting open pedicle screw fusion provides favorable results in patients with low back discomfort and pain compared to conventional open pedicle screw fixation over 1 year after surgery. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(4):745753.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(suppl):S1-S6.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    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):17801784.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Sommer F, Hussain I, Kirnaz S, et al. Augmented reality to improve surgical workflow in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - a feasibility study with case series. Neurospine. 2022;19(3):574585.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 170 170 170
Full Text Views 30 30 30
PDF Downloads 41 41 41
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0