Search

Study Design:Systematic review.Objective:To date there is no consensus among surgeons as to what defines an MIS-TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using minimally invasive spine surgery) compared to an open or mini-open TLIF. This systematic review aimed to examine the MIS-TLIF techniques reported in the recent body of literature to help provide a definition of what constitutes the MIS-TLIF, based on the consensus of the majority of surgeons.Methods:We created a database of articles published about MIS-TLIF between 2010 and 2018. We evaluated the technical components of the MIS-TLIF including instruments and incisions used as well the order in which key steps are performed.Results:We could identify several patterns for MIS-TLIF performance that seemed agreed upon by the majority of MIS surgeons: use of paramedian incisions; use of a tubular retractor to perform a total facetectomy, decompression, and interbody cage implantation; and percutaneous insertion of the pedicle-screw rod constructs with intraoperative imaging.Conclusion:Based on this review of the literature, the key features used by surgeons performing MIS TLIF include the use of nonexpandable or expandable tubular retractors, a paramedian or lateral incision, and the use of a microscope or endoscope for visualization. Approaches using expandable nontubular retractors, those that require extensive subperiosteal dissection from the midline laterally, or specular-based retractors with wide pedicle to pedicle exposure are far less likely to be promoted as an MIS-based approach. A definition is necessary to improve the communication among spine surgeons in research as well as patient education.

Study Design: A retrospective single-center analysis of 159 cases. Objective: To investigate differences between male and female patients, as spinal infection (SI) represents a life-threatening condition and numerous factors may facilitate the course and outcome of SI, including patients’ age and comorbidities, as well as gender. To date, no comparative data investigating sex differences in SI is available. Thus, the purpose of the present retrospective trial was to investigate differences between male and female patients. Methods: A total of 159 patients who were treated for a spinal infection between 2010 and 2016 at our department were included in the analysis. The patients were categorized into 2 groups based on gender. Evaluation included magnetic resonance imaging, laboratory values, clinical outcome, and conservative/operative management. Results: Male patients suffered from SI significantly more often than female patients (n = 101, 63.5% vs n = 58, 36.5%, P = .001). However, female patients were initially affected more severely, as infection parameters were significantly higher ( P = .032) and vertebral destruction was more serious ( P = .018). Furthermore, women suffered from intraoperative complications more often ( P = .024) and received erythrocyte concentrates more frequently ( P = .01). Nevertheless, mortality rates and outcome were comparable. Pain scales were significantly higher in female patients at 12-month follow-up ( P = .042). Conclusion: Although male patients show a higher incidence for SI, the course of disease and the management is more challenging in female patients. Nevertheless, outcome after 12 months is comparably good. Underlying mechanisms may include a better immune response and dissimilar effects of antibiotic treatment in women. Pain management in female patients is still unsatisfactory after 12 months.

Study Design: Technical note, retrospective case series. Objective: Lumbar stenosis can be effectively treated using tubular unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD). For multilevel stenosis, a multilevel ULBD through separate, alternating crossover approaches has been described as the “slalom technique.” To increase efficacy, we introduced this approach with 2 microscopes simultaneously. Methods: We collected data on 13 patients, with multilevel lumbar stenosis, operated at our institution between 2015 and 2016 by the aforementioned technique. We assessed surgical time (ST), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and revision surgeries. Furthermore, we provide a stepwise instruction for performing the tandem microscopic slalom technique in a safe and efficient manner. Results: The mean age of the patients was 68 ± 8 years. The ST per level was 68 ± 19 minutes with an EBL per level of 39 ± 30 mL. We had no intraoperative complications and none of our patients required a revision surgery during a mean follow-up of 12 months. Conclusions: We have shown that this technique is feasible and can be performed safely for multisegmental lumbar spinal stenosis with minimal tissue trauma and low EBL. Furthermore, randomized controlled studies with a larger sample size may be necessary to drive any final conclusions.