Objective: This study introduces a modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) technique to address the limitations of conventional MIS-TLIF, including soft tissue injury, excessive reliance on intraoperative fluoroscopy, and a steep learning curve. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of this modified approach in the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spine disease, with the aim of elucidating its advantages over the traditional technique and summarizing key technical considerations.
Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 286 patients who underwent surgery between January 2018 and July 2021 for single-level degenerative lumbar disease. Patients were divided into modified MIS-TLIF (n = 131) and traditional MIS-TLIF (n = 155) groups. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Surgical parameters included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, hospital stay, and complication rates. Radiographic assessments used CT and dynamic lateral X-rays to evaluate interbody fusion, while MRI was used to measure the fatty infiltration ratio of the multifidus (MF-FI Ratio). Continuous variables were compared between groups using independent-samples t tests, whereas categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when expected cell counts were < 5. Paired t tests were employed to compare preoperative and postoperative measurements within each group. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Postoperative VAS, ODI, and JOA scores improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). All cases achieved successful fusion at the final follow-up. Compared to the traditional group, the modified MIS-TLIF group had shorter operation time (101.83 ± 26.23 vs. 117.81 ± 27.87 min), less blood loss (111.83 ± 26.22 vs. 147.68 ± 28.19 mL), shorter fluoroscopy time (12.35 ± 1.72 vs. 50.33 ± 6.36 s), fewer complications (5/131 vs. 16/155), and a lower MF-FI ratio (36.67% ± 4.52% vs. 39.61% ± 4.58%).
Conclusion: The modified MIS-TLIF technique better preserves paravertebral muscles, reduces radiation exposure, shortens operative time, and lowers complication rates, offering a more optimized treatment option for managing single-segment lumbar degeneration.
| [1] |
K. Luoma, H. Riihimäki, R. Luukkonen, R. Raininko, E. Viikari-Juntura, and A. Lamminen, “Low Back Pain in Relation to Lumbar Disc Degeneration,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25 (2000): 487–492.
|
| [2] |
R. J. Mobbs, K. Phan, G. Malham, K. Seex, and P. J. Rao, “Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Indications and Comparison of Interbody Fusion Options Including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF,” Journal of Spine Surgery 1 (2015): 2–18.
|
| [3] |
J. H. Oppenheimer, I. DeCastro, and D. E. McDonnell, “Minimally Invasive Spine Technology and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Historical Review,” Neurosurgical Focus 27 (2009): E9.
|
| [4] |
R. B. Cloward, “The Treatment of Ruptured Lumbar Intervertebral Disc by Vertebral Body Fusion. III. Method of Use of Banked Bone,” Annals of Surgery 136 (1952): 987–992.
|
| [5] |
J. N. Weinstein, J. D. Lurie, T. D. Tosteson, et al., “Surgical Compared With Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Four-Year Results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Randomized and Observational Cohorts,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 91 (2009): 1295–1304.
|
| [6] |
J. Harms and H. Rolinger, “A One-Stager Procedure in Operative Treatment of Spondylolistheses: Dorsal Traction-Reposition and Anterior Fusion (Author's Transl),” Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Ihre Grenzgebiete 120 (1982): 343–347.
|
| [7] |
H. Taylor, A. H. McGregor, S. Medhi-Zadeh, et al., “The Impact of Self-Retaining Retractors on the Paraspinal Muscles During Posterior Spinal Surgery,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 (2002): 2758–2762.
|
| [8] |
T. Sihvonen, A. Herno, L. Paljärvi, O. Airaksinen, J. Partanen, and A. Tapaninaho, “Local Denervation Atrophy of Paraspinal Muscles in Postoperative Failed Back Syndrome,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18 (1993): 575–581.
|
| [9] |
K. T. Foley and M. A. Lefkowitz, “Advances in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery,” Clinical Neurosurgery 49 (2002): 499–517.
|
| [10] |
K. Phan, P. J. Rao, A. C. Kam, and R. J. Mobbs, “Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 24 (2015): 1017–1030.
|
| [11] |
F. Shunwu, Z. Xing, Z. Fengdong, and F. Xiangqian, “Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (2010): 1615–1620.
|
| [12] |
H. L. Wang, F. Z. Lü, J. Y. Jiang, X. Ma, X. L. Xia, and L. X. Wang, “Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion via MAST Quadrant Retractor Versus Open Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial,” Chinese Medical Journal 124 (2011): 3868–3874.
|
| [13] |
A. P. Wong, Z. A. Smith, J. A. Stadler, et al., “Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): Surgical Technique, Long-Term 4-Year Prospective Outcomes, and Complications Compared With an Open TLIF Cohort,” Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 25 (2014): 279–304.
|
| [14] |
C. Schizas, N. Tzinieris, E. Tsiridis, and V. Kosmopoulos, “Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Evaluating Initial Experience,” International Orthopaedics 33 (2009): 1683–1688.
|
| [15] |
D. Lau, J. G. Lee, S. J. Han, D. C. Lu, and D. Chou, “Complications and Perioperative Factors Associated With Learning the Technique of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF),” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 18 (2011): 624–627.
|
| [16] |
L. L. Wiltse, “The Paraspinal Sacrospinalis-Splitting Approach to the Lumbar Spine,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 91 (1973): 48–57.
|
| [17] |
S. Lener, C. Wipplinger, R. N. Hernandez, et al., “Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide,” Global Spine Journal 10 (2020): 151S–167S.
|
| [18] |
J. R. Styf and J. Willén, “The Effects of External Compression by Three Different Retractors on Pressure in the Erector Spine Muscles During and After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery in Humans,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 (1998): 354–358.
|
| [19] |
J. He, F. Luo, H. Wang, J. Xu, and Z. Zhang, “SAP Principle Guided Free Hand Technique: A Secret for T1 to S1 Pedicle Screw Placement,” Orthopaedic Surgery 14 (2022): 2995–3002.
|
| [20] |
G. Mathew, R. Agha, J. Albrecht, et al., “STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort, Cross-Sectional and Case-Control Studies in Surgery,” International Journal of Surgery 96 (2021): 106165.
|
| [21] |
Y. M. Jin, Q. Chen, C. Y. Chen, et al., “Clinical Research and Technique Note of TLIF by Wiltse Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar,” Orthopaedic Surgery 13 (2021): 1628–1638.
|
| [22] |
D. J. Hoh, M. Y. Wang, and S. L. Ritland, “Anatomic Features of the Paramedian Muscle-Splitting Approaches to the Lumbar Spine,” Neurosurgery 66 (2010): 13–24.
|
| [23] |
J. A. Gruskay, M. L. Webb, and J. N. Grauer, “Methods of Evaluating Lumbar and Cervical Fusion,” Spine Journal 14 (2014): 531–539.
|
| [24] |
Y. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Hai, T. Liu, L. Guan, and X. Chen, “Fat Infiltration in the Multifidus Muscle as a Predictor of Prognosis After Decompression and Fusion in Patients With Single-Segment Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Ambispective Cohort Study Based on Propensity Score Matching,” World Neurosurgery 128 (2019): e989–e1001.
|
| [25] |
J. A. Hides, C. A. Richardson, and G. A. Jull, “Multifidus Muscle Recovery Is Not Automatic After Resolution of Acute, First-Episode Low Back Pain,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 (1996): 2763–2769.
|
| [26] |
K. Kotil, T. Tunckale, Z. Tatar, M. Koldas, A. Kural, and T. Bilge, “Serum Creatine Phosphokinase Activity and Histological Changes in the Multifidus Muscle: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Comparative Study of Discectomy With or Without Retraction,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 6 (2007): 121–125.
|
| [27] |
J. S. Harrop, J. A. Youssef, M. Maltenfort, et al., “Lumbar Adjacent Segment Degeneration and Disease After Arthrodesis and Total Disc Arthroplasty,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 (2008): 1701–1707.
|
| [28] |
J. Rodríguez-Vela, A. Lobo-Escolar, E. Joven, J. Muñoz-Marín, A. Herrera, and J. Velilla, “Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Approach for One-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the 3- To 4-Year Follow-Up,” European Spine Journal 22 (2013): 2857–2863.
|
| [29] |
Y. Kawaguchi, H. Matsui, and H. Tsuji, “Back Muscle Injury After Posterior Lumbar Spine Surgery. A Histologic and Enzymatic Analysis,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 (1996): 941–944.
|
| [30] |
K. T. Kim, S. H. Lee, K. S. Suk, and S. C. Bae, “The Quantitative Analysis of Tissue Injury Markers After Mini-Open Lumbar Fusion,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 (2006): 712–716.
|
| [31] |
S. Fan, Z. Hu, F. Zhao, X. Zhao, Y. Huang, and X. Fang, “Multifidus Muscle Changes and Clinical Effects of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Procedure Versus Conventional Open Approach,” European Spine Journal 19 (2010): 316–324.
|
| [32] |
D. V. Flores, C. Mejía Gómez, M. Estrada-Castrillón, E. Smitaman, and M. N. Pathria, “MR Imaging of Muscle Trauma: Anatomy, Biomechanics, Pathophysiology, and Imaging Appearance,” Radiographics 38 (2018): 124–148.
|
| [33] |
National Research Council (US) Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing R(V), Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Beir V (National Academies Press, 1990).
|
| [34] |
C. C. Boring, T. S. Squires, and T. Tong, “Cancer Statistics, 1991,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 41 (1991): 19–36.
|
| [35] |
J. C. Lee, H. D. Jang, and B. J. Shin, “Learning Curve and Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Our Experience in 86 Consecutive Cases,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 (2012): 1548–1557.
|
| [36] |
C. R. Ramsay, A. M. Grant, S. A. Wallace, P. H. Garthwaite, A. F. Monk, and I. T. Russell, “Statistical Assessment of the Learning Curves of Health Technologies,” Health Technology Assessment 5 (2001): 1–79.
|
| [37] |
A. P. Wong, Z. A. Smith, A. T. Nixon, et al., “Intraoperative and Perioperative Complications in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of 513 Patients,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 22 (2015): 487–495.
|
| [38] |
A. Habib, Z. A. Smith, C. D. Lawton, and R. G. Fessler, “Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Perspective on Current Evidence and Clinical Knowledge,” Minimally Invasive Surgery 2012 (2012): 657342.
|
| [39] |
Q. Jin-Tao, T. Yu, W. Mei, et al., “Comparison of MIS vs. Open PLIF/TLIF With Regard to Clinical Improvement, Fusion Rate, and Incidence of Major Complication: A Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 24 (2015): 1058–1065.
|
| [40] |
R. Doria-Medina, U. Hubbe, C. Scholz, et al., “Free-Hand MIS TLIF Without 3D Navigation-How to Achieve Low Radiation Exposure for Both Surgeon and Patient,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 12 (2023): 5125.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2026 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
(1192KB)
