Background: Lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS) is a spinal disorder that often necessitates surgical intervention. However, evidence on the comparative clinical value of robot-assisted full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RA FE-TLIF) versus conventional FE-TLIF in early-grade (Grades I and II) LS remains limited, leaving uncertainty about its true clinical value in this patient population. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of FE-TLIF with RA FE-TLIF in patients with Grade I and II LS.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 47 patients who underwent surgical treatment for LS between April 2022 and April 2023 at our hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: 22 underwent RA FE-TLIF, and 25 underwent FE-TLIF. Key outcomes measured included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery time, fusion rate, screw placement accuracy, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the incidence of postoperative complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the independent-sample t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.
Results: The RA FE-TLIF group exhibited significantly shorter operative times and lower intraoperative blood loss compared to the FE-TLIF group (p < 0.05). Postoperative recovery, as measured by hospital stay, was also shorter in the RA FE-TLIF group (p = 0.001). VAS and JOA scores indicated greater pain relief and functional improvement in the RA FE-TLIF group, with statistically significant differences observed at both 1 month and final follow-up (p < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the RA FE-TLIF group, though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.144). Complete fusion rates were 95.45% in the RA FE-TLIF group and 88.00% in the FE-TLIF group, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Screw placement accuracy was higher in the RA FE-TLIF group (97.73%) than in the FE-TLIF group (89.00%), with a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: RA FE-TLIF demonstrates superior clinical outcomes compared to FE-TLIF in the treatment of LS. These findings support the broader adoption of RA FE-TLIF as a preferred surgical technique for this condition.
| [1] |
H. W. D. Hey, T. L. Low, H. L. Soh, et al., “Prevalence and Risk Factors of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Retrolisthesis in the Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Spine–an EOS Study Using Updated Radiographic Parameters,” Global Spine Journal 14 (2023): 21925682221134044.
|
| [2] |
D. J. Harrison, A. R. Bhandarkar, S. Durrani, et al., “Emerging Innovations for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Management: A Systematic Review of Active and Prospective Clinical Trials,” Neurosurgical Review 45, no. 6 (2022): 3629–3640.
|
| [3] |
F. Costa, O. L. Alves, C. D. Anania, M. Zileli, and M. Fornari, “Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations,” World Neurosurgery: X 7 (2020): 100076.
|
| [4] |
C. Kong, W. Wang, X. Li, et al., “A New Lever Reduction Technique for the Surgical Treatment of Elderly Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 21 (2020): 1–8.
|
| [5] |
K. Schöller, M. Alimi, G.-T. Cong, P. Christos, and R. Härtl, “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated With Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Secondary Fusion Rates Following Open vs Minimally Invasive Decompression,” Neurosurgery 80, no. 3 (2017): 355–367.
|
| [6] |
K. Ito, Z. Ito, S. Nakamura, F. Ito, M. Shibayama, and Y. Miura, “Minimization of Lumbar Interbody Fusion by Percutaneous Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PELIF), and Its Minimally Invasiveness Comparison With Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF),” Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery 34 (2023): 101794.
|
| [7] |
J.-C. Wang, Z. Cao, Z.-Z. Li, H. L. Zhao, and S. X. Hou, “Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Tubular Retractor System: A Retrospective Controlled Study,” World Neurosurgery 165 (2022): e457–e468.
|
| [8] |
X. Wu, W. Liu, X. Xiao, et al., “Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of VBE-TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Diseases,” European Spine Journal 33, no. 3 (2024): 1120–1128.
|
| [9] |
C. Wang, H. Zhang, L. Zhang, et al., “Accuracy and Deviation Analysis of Robot-Assisted Spinal Implants: A Retrospective Overview of 105 Cases and Preliminary Comparison to Open Freehand Surgery in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis,” International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 17, no. 4 (2021): e2273.
|
| [10] |
X. Wang, H.-C. Liu, Y.-H. Ma, Q.-s. Zhu, and Y.-H. Zhu, “Effectiveness and Safety of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Robotic Surgery 18, no. 1 (2024): 37.
|
| [11] |
M. Mingzheng Chang, M. Lianlei Wang, M. Suomao Yuan, et al., “Percutaneous Endoscopic Robot-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PE RA-TLIF) for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Technical Note and Two Years Clinical Results,” Pain Physician 25 (2022): E73–E86.
|
| [12] |
T. Rueckert, D. Rueckert, and C. Palm, “Methods and Datasets for Segmentation of Minimally Invasive Surgical Instruments in Endoscopic Images and Videos: A Review of the State of the Art,” Computers in Biology and Medicine 169 (2024): 107929.
|
| [13] |
S. Oikonomidis, C. Meyer, M. J. Scheyerer, et al., “Lumbar Spinal Fusion of Low-Grade Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (Meyerding Grade I and II): Do Reduction and Correction of the Radiological Sagittal Parameters Correlate With Better Clinical Outcome?,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 140 (2020): 1155–1162.
|
| [14] |
P. Bovonratwet, A. M. Samuel, J. K. Mok, et al., “Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis [J],” Spine 47, no. 21 (2022): 1505–1514.
|
| [15] |
M. A. El-Olemy, H. H. Salama, W. M. Essa, M. A. T. El-Olemy, W. M. E. Essa, and W. A. Elmesallamy, “Safety and Effectiveness of Two Surgical Interventions in Treatment of Grade I and II Lumber Spondylolisthesis,” Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine 89, no. 1 (2022): 5328–5334.
|
| [16] |
A. K. Chan, M. Bydon, E. F. Bisson, et al., “Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade I Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: 5-Year Follow-Up From the Prospective Multicenter Quality Outcomes Database Registry,” Neurosurgical Focus 54, no. 1 (2023): E2.
|
| [17] |
J. Guan, N. Feng, X. Yu, and K. Yang, “Comparison of Robot-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trails and Cohort Studies,” Systematic Reviews 13, no. 1 (2024): 170.
|
| [18] |
B. Schatlo, G. Molliqaj, V. Cuvinciuc, M. Kotowski, K. Schaller, and E. Tessitore, “Safety and Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Pedicle Screw Insertion for Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbar Spine: A Matched Cohort Comparison,” Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 20, no. 6 (2014): 636–643.
|
| [19] |
S. Adamski, P. Stogowski, M. Rocławski, R. Pankowski, and W. Kloc, “Review of Currently Used Classifications for Pedicle Screw Position Grading in Cervical, Thoracic and Lumbar Spine,” Chirurgia Narzadow Ruchu I Ortopedia Polska 88, no. 4 (2023): 165–171.
|
| [20] |
S.-I. Suk, C.-K. Lee, W.-J. Kim, et al., “Adding Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion to Pedicle Screw Fixation and Posterolateral Fusion After Decompression in Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis,” Spine 22, no. 2 (1997): 210–219.
|
| [21] |
M. R. Begum and M. A. Hossain, “Validity and Reliability of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Pain Measurement,” Journal of Medical Case Reports and Reviews 2, no. 11 (2019): 394–402.
|
| [22] |
M. Kawakami, K. Takeshita, G. Inoue, et al., “Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, 2021-Secondary Publication,” Journal of Orthopaedic Science 28, no. 1 (2023): 46–91.
|
| [23] |
C.-C. Huang, J. Fitts, D. Huie, D. A. Bhowmick, and M. M. Abd-El-Barr, “Evolution of Cervical Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Current Progress and Future Directions—A Narrative Review,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 7 (2024): 2122.
|
| [24] |
W. Wang, Q. Guo, Z. Yang, Y. Jiang, and J. Xu, “A State-Of-The-Art Review on Robotic Milling of Complex Parts With High Efficiency and Precision,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 79 (2023): 102436.
|
| [25] |
S. B. Roberts and A. I. Tsirikos, Paediatric Spinal Deformity Surgery: Complications and their Management; Proceedings of the Healthcare, F, 2022. MDPI.
|
| [26] |
Y. Abdalla and S. Hajdari, “New Approaches to Proven Technology: Force Control Posterior Thoracolumbar Fusion With an Innovative Pedicle Screw System,” Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery 31 (2023): 101701.
|
| [27] |
D. P. Ahern, D. Gibbons, G. D. Schroeder, A. R. Vaccaro, and J. S. Butler, “Image-Guidance, Robotics, and the Future of Spine Surgery,” Clinical Spine Surgery 33, no. 5 (2020): 179–184.
|
| [28] |
M. Bhimreddy, A. K. Menta, A. A. Fuleihan, et al., “Beyond Pedicle Screw Placement: Future Minimally Invasive Applications of Robotics in Spine Surgery,” Neurosurgery 96, no. 3S (2025): S94–S102.
|
| [29] |
J.-H. Klingler, R. Sircar, C. Scheiwe, et al., “Comparative Study of C-Arms for Intraoperative 3-Dimensional Imaging and Navigation in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Part II: Radiation Exposure,” Clinical Spine Surgery 30, no. 6 (2017): E669–E676.
|
| [30] |
M. Tanaka, J. Schol, D. Sakai, et al., “Low Radiation Protocol for Intraoperative Robotic C-Arm Can Enhance Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Deformity Correction Accuracy and Safety,” Global Spine Journal 14, no. 5 (2024): 1504–1514.
|
| [31] |
M. Jehanzeb and A. Khizar, “Radiation Exposure in Spine Surgeries: A Review of Risks, Consequences, and Prevention Strategies,” Romanian Neurosurgery 37, no. 3 (2023): 354–369.
|
| [32] |
A. Pore, Z. Li, D. Dall'alba, et al., “Autonomous Navigation for Robot-Assisted Intraluminal and Endovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics 39, no. 4 (2023): 2529–2548.
|
| [33] |
D. H. Campbell, D. Mcdonald, K. Araghi, T. Araghi, N. Chutkan, and A. Araghi, “The Clinical Impact of Image Guidance and Robotics in Spinal Surgery: A Review of Safety, Accuracy, Efficiency, and Complication Reduction,” International Journal of Spine Surgery 15, no. s2 (2021): S10–S20.
|
| [34] |
W. Zhang, Y. Dou, Y. Yang, et al., “Efficacy of Robot-Assisted Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degree I and II Lumbar Spondylolisthesis,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Research 37, no. 5 (2024): 4.
|
| [35] |
C. W. Kanaly, D. M. Backes, N. Toossi, and B. Bucklen, “Robotic-Assisted Spine Surgery Allows for Increased Pedicle Screw Sizes While Still Improving Safety as Indicated by Elevated Triggered Electromyographic Thresholds,” Journal of Robotic Surgery 17, no. 3 (2023): 1007–1012.
|
| [36] |
M. B. Bokhari, C. B. Patel, D. I. Ramos-Valadez, M. Ragupathi, and E. M. Haas, “Learning Curve for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy 25 (2011): 855–860.
|
| [37] |
A. Jonsson, J. Binongo, P. Patel, et al., “Mastering the Learning Curve for Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery 115, no. 5 (2023): 1118–1125.
|
| [38] |
A. N. Sridhar, T. P. Briggs, J. D. Kelly, et al., “Training in Robotic Surgery—An Overview,” Current Urology Reports 18 (2017): 1–8.
|
| [39] |
J. M. Khan, G. K. Harada, B. A. Basques, et al., “Patients With Predominantly Back Pain at the Time of Lumbar Fusion for Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis Experience Similar Clinical Improvement to Patients With Predominantly Leg Pain: Mid-Term Results,” Spine Journal 20, no. 2 (2020): 276–282.
|
| [40] |
M. J. Dorsi, P. Buchanan, C. Vu, et al., “Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review,” Pain and Therapy 13, no. 3 (2024): 349–390.
|
| [41] |
A. Okumura, E. Kondo, M. Nii, M. Kubo-Kaneda, K. Yoshida, and T. Ikeda, “Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy and Conventional Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Gynecologic Benign Disease: A Single-Center Cohort Study,” Journal of Robotic Surgery 17, no. 5 (2023): 2221–2228.
|
| [42] |
R. Kalina, “Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS TLIF) in Treatment of Degenerative Diseases of Lumbosacral Spine Compared to Modified Open TLIF: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Study,” Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska 58 (2024): 503–511.
|
| [43] |
S. Sura, K. Mahesha, G. Chamle, A. R. Mallepally, A. Allamwar, and N. K. Pagidimarry, “Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Journal of Spinal Surgery 9, no. 4 (2022): 231–235.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
