Minimally Invasive Transpedicular Screw Fixation: Review of 152 Cases in a Single Institution. Steep or Shallow Learning Curve?

Abstract

Background In this study, we analyze our institutional experience and personal impressions using minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) to describe our learning curve and how experience influenced different parameters of the surgical procedure.

Methods The study was conducted prospectively and included the first consecutive 152 patients treated with MISS techniques. Patient demographics, surgical data, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcome were reviewed. The cohort was divided into consecutive quarters. Comparison between the quarters and timeline analysis were made to assess the learning curve.

Results Only percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation was performed in 65 cases, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in 70 cases, and vertebral body replacement in 4 cases. The average blood loss was 113.3, 115, 106.6, and 107.1 mL for each quarter. The average operative time was 155.0, 143.2, 134.5, and 133.8 minutes for the four quarters, whereas the average radiation exposure time was 105.4, 85.3, 46.2, and 45.2 seconds. Differences in the operative time and radiation exposure time between the first to third and the first to fourth quarters were statistically significant.

Conclusions Some advantages of MISS techniques could be observed with the very first cases and were not related significantly with the surgeon's experience with MISS. With the acquisition of more experience, some disadvantages of MISS techniques such as longer operative time and longer X-ray exposure can be substantially reduced. Surgical experience, familiarity of the team with the MISS instrumentation, and good patient selection are crucial for achieving all the benefits of MISS.

Keywords

minimally invasive technique - spine surgery - pedicle screw - radiation exposure - learning curve

Publication History

Received: 18 April 2021

Accepted: 28 July 2021

Article published online:
19 April 2022

• References

• 1 Vazan M, Gempt J, Meyer B, Buchmann N, Ryang Y-M. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2017; 159 (06) 1137-1146
• 2 Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 2010; 1 (01) 12
• 3 Walker CT, Xu DS, Godzik J, Turner JD, Uribe JS, Smith WD. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal trauma. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6 (06) 102
• 4 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) 1780-1784
• 5 Phan K, Rao PJ, Kam AC, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (05) 1017-1030
• 6 Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (06) 1683-1688
• 7 Terman SW, Yee TJ, Lau D, Khan AA, La Marca F, Park P. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20 (06) 644-652
• 8 Lee JC, Jang H-D, Shin B-J. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine 2012; 37 (18) 1548-1557
• 9 Sharif S, Afsar A. Learning curve and minimally invasive spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2018; 119: 472-478
• 10 Reichenbach DJ, Tackett AD, Harris J. et al. Laparoscopic colon resection early in the learning curve: what is the appropriate setting?. Ann Surg 2006; 243 (06) 730-735 , discussion 735–737
• 11 Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, Lu DC, Chou D. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18 (05) 624-627
• 12 Eckman WW, Hester L, McMillen M. Same-day discharge after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a series of 808 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (06) 1806-1812
• 13 Brodano GB, Martikos K, Lolli F. et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative disk disease and spondylolisthesis grade I: minimally invasive versus open surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (10) E559-E564
• 14 Chang F, Zhang T, Gao G. et al. Comparison of the minimally invasive and conventional open surgery approach in the treatment of lumbar stenosis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Ann Acad Med Singap 2017; 46 (04) 124-137
• 15 Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27 (04) 202-206
• 16 Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G. et al. Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (04) 817-824
• 17 Lee KH, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Yue WM. Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27 (07) E234-E240