Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) Outcomes in the Aging Hispanic Population: A Retrospective Cohort Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71332/qwffpj20Keywords:
MIS-TLIF, Robotic Spine Surgery, Lumbar Stenosis, Degenerative Spondylolisthesis, Elderly Patient Care, Spinal Fusion, Postoperative Outcomes, Quality of Life, OrthopedicsAbstract
Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar spinal fusions have evolved significantly to treat lumbar spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and many other complex conditions. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes of patients aged 65 and older who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with robotic assistance. In this single-surgeon single-institution retrospective cohort study, 72 patients aged 65 and older who underwent MIS-TLIF from 2018 to 2021 were analyzed. Patients had diagnoses of lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and lower extremities at baseline, and 6, 9, or 12 months postoperatively. The data was analyzed, and outcomes were compared using paired t-tests. Significant improvements in disability were observed postoperatively, with mean ODI scores decreasing from 46.4% to 9.3% (95% CI: -41.2, -33.1). In terms of pain intensity, mean VAS scores for back pain decreased from 8.0 to 3.5 (95% CI: -5.1, -3.9) and leg pain scores also decreased from 8.2 to 2.9 (95% CI: -5.9, -4.6). These changes indicate substantial clinical improvements (p < 0.001). This study substantiates the efficacy of MIS-TLIF in significantly improving pain relief and functional mobility among seniors with lumbar conditions. The substantial reductions in ODI and VAS scores highlight its clinical benefits potential to set a new standard of care. By offering a robotically assisted, minimally invasive alternative, this approach aligns with contemporary healthcare objectives of enhancing patient recovery while minimizing procedural risks and costs.
References
Harms et al. The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar inter body fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88-89.
Lowe et al. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar inter body fusion: indications, technique, and 2-year results. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. February 2022, Volume 15, pp. 31-38.
Cloward RB. History of PLIF; forty years of personal experience. In: Lin PM, editor. Posterior lumbar inter body fusion. Springfield: Charles C Thomas; pp. 58-71.
Wang, Michael Y et al. “An analysis of the differences in the acute hospitalization charges following minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion.” Journal of neurosurgery. Spine vol. 12,6 (2010): 694-9. doi:10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09621.
Dhall, Sanjay S et al. “Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up.” Journal of neurosurgery. Spine vol. 9,6 (2008): 560-5. doi:10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142.
Administration of Aging, Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. population by age: July 1, 2010. 2010. Available online: http://www.aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Census_Population/census2010/Index.aspx [Accessed on July 2022]
Etame, Arnold B et al. “Clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.” SAS journal vol. 4,2 47-53. 1 Jun. 2010, doi:10.1016/j.esas.2010.03.002.
Villavicencio, Alan T et al. “Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.” Surgical neurology international vol. 1,12 (2010). doi:10.4103/2152-7806.63905.
Fu, Kai-Ming G et al. “Correlation of higher preoperative American Society of Anesthesiology grade and increased morbidity and mortality rates in patients undergoing spine surgery.” Journal of neurosurgery. Spine vol. 14,4 (2011): 470-4. doi:10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10486.
Kobayashi, Kazuyoshi et al. “Postoperative Complications Associated With Spine Surgery in Patients Older Than 90 Years: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.” Global spine journal vol. 8,8 (2018): 887-891. doi:10.1177/2192568218767430.
Somani, Sulaiman et al. “ASA Classification as a Risk Stratification Tool in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Study of 5805 Patients.” Global spine journal vol. 7,8 (2017): 719-726. doi:10.1177/2192568217700106.
Lee, Low Yong et al. “Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery Compared to Open Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation and Fusion.” Asian journal of neurosurgery vol. 12,4 (2017): 620-637. doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_331_16.
Jang, Jee-Soo, and Sang-Ho Lee. “Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with ipsilateral pedicle screw and contralateral facet screw fixation.” Journal of neurosurgery. Spine vol. 3,3 (2005): 218-23. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.3.0218.
Deutsch, Harel, and Michael J Musacchio Jr. “Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation.” Neurosurgical focus vol. 20,3 E10. 15 Mar. 2006, doi:10.3171/foc.2006.20.3.11.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ponce Health Sciences University Scientific Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their articles. All works are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited.