Advancements in minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis_West China Medical Journal

Authors：

YI Han ^1,2 , WANG Fei ^1,2 , XIAO Lin ^1,2 , HU Jiang ^1,2 ,  ZHANG Wei ^1,2

1. School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan 610054, P. R. China;
2. Department of Orthopedics, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences • Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610072, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

ZHANG Wei, Email: zhangwspine@163.com

Keywords：

Lumbar spondylolisthesis; minimally invasive spine; spinal endoscopy; surgical treatment

DOI：

10.7507/1002-0179.202305088

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common condition in spinal surgery, which is often characterized by lower back and leg pain and numbness. There are various treatment methods for this condition, and different treatment plans should be adopted according to different situations. Traditional open surgery methods are relatively traumatic and have longer recovery times, while minimally invasive spine techniques have advantages such as smaller incisions, less bleeding, higher fusion rates, and faster recovery. This review summarizes the relevant literature on the application of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in recent years, analyzes and compares the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and endoscopic techniques, as well as reduction, decompression, and fusion effects. The aim is to provide reference for surgeons in selecting surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Citation： YI Han, WANG Fei, XIAO Lin, HU Jiang, ZHANG Wei. Advancements in minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. West China Medical Journal, 2023, 38(10): 1564-1570. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.202305088 Copy

1.	An H, Singh K. Synopsis of Spine Surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme, 2016.
2.	Chan AK, Sharma V, Robinson LC, et al. Summary of guidelines for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2019, 30(3): 353-364.
3.	Chan AK, Bydon M, Bisson EF, 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. Neurosurg Focus, 2023, 54(1): E2.
4.	钟绵森, 许伟, 钟远鸣, 等. 不同入路微创椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的适应证和疗效研究进展. 山东医药, 2023, 63(26): 109-112.
5.	万大地, 袁野, 范鑫超, 等. 腰椎滑脱症的分类及治疗进展. 中国医药导刊, 2021, 23(3): 190-194.
6.	Sakaura H, Miwa T, Yamashita T, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study. J Neurosurg Spine, 2016, 25(5): 591-595.
7.	Said E, Abdel-Wanis ME, Ameen M, et al. Posterolateral fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Global Spine J, 2022, 12(5): 990-1002.
8.	Cheung NK, Ferch RD, Ghahreman A, et al. Long-term follow-up of minimal-access and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery, 2013, 72(3): 443-450; discussion 450-451.
9.	Tan Y, Tanaka M, Sonawane S, et al. Comparison of simultaneous single-position oblique lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using O-arm navigated technique for lumbar degenerative diseases. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(21): 4938.
10.	Maruenda JI, Barrios C, Garibo F, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25(5): 1550-1557.
11.	Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(Suppl 15): S26-S35.
12.	Badlani N, Yu E, Kreitz T, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Clin Spine Surg, 2020, 33(2): 62-64.
13.	Bredow J, Meyer C, Oikonomidis S, et al. Long-term radiological and clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective 6-year follow-up study. Orthop Surg, 2022, 14(8): 1607-1614.
14.	Heemskerk JL, Oluwadara Akinduro O, Clifton W, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Spine J, 2021, 21(12): 2049-2065.
15.	Chan AK, Bission EF, Bydon M, et al. In reply: a comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an analysis of the prospective quality outcomes database. Neurosurgery, 2020, 87(5): E609-E610.
16.	Tang AR, Chanbour H, Steinle AM, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion alone in the treatment of grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery, 2023, 93(1): 186-197.
17.	Sato J, Ohtori S, Orita S, et al. Radiographic evaluation of indirect decompression of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerated lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J, 2017, 26(3): 671-678.
18.	Xu DS, Bach K, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive anterior and lateral transpsoas approaches for closed reduction of grade Ⅱ spondylolisthesis: initial clinical and radiographic experience. Neurosurg Focus, 2018, 44(1): E4.
19.	Lang G, Perrech M, Navarro-Ramirez R, et al. Potential and limitations of neural decompression in extreme lateral interbody fusion-a systematic review. World Neurosurg, 2017, 101: 99-113.
20.	Navarro-Ramirez R, Lang G, Moriguchi Y, et al. Are locked facets a contraindication for extreme lateral interbody fusion?. World Neurosurg, 2017, 100: 607-618.
21.	Taba HA, Williams SK. Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2020, 31(1): 33-42.
22.	Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(6): 691-699; discussion 700.
23.	Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Alvi MA, et al. Outcomes following minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion for degenerative low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2018, 167: 122-128.
24.	李振宙, 侯树勋. 腰椎退行性疾病微创外科治疗概况及展望. 中国骨与关节杂志, 2022, 11(9): 641-647.
25.	Tay KS, Bassi A, Yeo W, et al. Intraoperative reduction does not result in better outcomes in low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with neurogenic symptoms after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-a 5-year follow-up study. Spine J, 2016, 16(2): 182-190.
26.	Kotani Y, Ikeura A, Saito T. Comparative clinical analysis of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5/S1 versus minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for degenerative lumbosacral disorders. Spine Surg Relat Res, 2022, 7(1): 66-73.
27.	Du W, Wang Z, Dong Y, et al. Recent efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with wiltse approach pedicle screw fixation for degenerative single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg, 2023, 171: E533-E541.
28.	Zhu HF, Fang XQ, Zhao FD, et al. Comparison of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease: a prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2022, 47(6): E233-E242.
29.	Zhou T, Fan W, Gu Y, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery combined with mini-incision OLIF and anterolateral screws rod fixation vs. MIS-TLIF for surgical treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Front Surg, 2023, 9: 1049448.
30.	Li R, Li X, Zhou H, et al. Development and application of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Surg, 2020, 12(2): 355-365.
31.	Pereira P, Park Y, Arzoglou V, et al. Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up. Spine J, 2023, 23(10): 1494-1505.
32.	Lee SH, Choi WG, Lim SR, et al. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J, 2004, 4(6): 644-649.
33.	Khan HA, Stumpf NJ, Isbester KA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion reduces thecal sac compression in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine J, 2020, 20(7): 1035-1036.
34.	Rathbone J, Rackham M, Nielsen D, et al. A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(6): 1911-1926.
35.	Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, et al. Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med, 2018, 6(6): 104.
36.	Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg, 2015, 1(1): 2-18.
37.	Van Isseldyk F, Liu Y, Kim JH, et al. Full-endoscopic foraminotomy in low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis: a patient-specific tailored approach. Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(8): 2828-2844.
38.	张斌, 孔清泉, 戎利民. 经皮内镜辅助腰椎椎间融合术的技术利弊分析及趋势展望. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2022, 36(6): 653-659.
39.	Butler AJ, Brusko GD, Wang MY. Awake endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical note. HSS J, 2020, 16(2): 200-204.
40.	Nagahama K, Ito M, Abe Y, et al. Early clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a new modified technique for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine Surg Relat Res, 2018, 3(4): 327-334.
41.	Jin M, Xu G, Shen T, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis: percutaneous endoscopic or oblique lumbar interbody fusion. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(9): 639-650.
42.	Lv Y, Chen M, Wang SL, et al. Endo-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized pilot study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2022, 212: 107082.
43.	Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, et al. Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to MIS-TLIF? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg, 2020, 76: 136-143.
44.	Ge M, Zhang Y, Ying H, et al. Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop, 2022, 46(9): 2063-2070.
45.	Zhu L, Cai T, Shan Y, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Pain Physician, 2021, 24(6): 441-452.
46.	Hu X, Yan L, Jin X, et al. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Global Spine J, 2023: 21925682231168577.
47.	Chang M, Wang L, Yuan S, 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, 2022, 25(1): E73-E86.
48.	Stone CE, Myers BL, Gupta S, et al. Surgical outcomes after single-level endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus, 2020, 12(10): e11052.
49.	Li Y, Cheng X, Chen B. Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg Res, 2023, 18(1): 183.
50.	Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, et al. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg, 2010, 2(3): 194-200.
51.	Jacquot F, Gastambide D. Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it?. Int Orthop, 2013, 37(8): 1507-1510.
52.	中国医师协会骨科医师分会脊柱微创学组. 水介质脊柱内镜下腰椎椎间融合术的临床应用指南(2022). 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2022, 24(9): 737-746.
53.	Park DY, Upfill-Brown A, Curtin N, et al. Clinical outcomes and complications after biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 3673 cases. Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(8): 2637-2646.
54.	Naftalovich R, Singal A, Iskander AJ. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for spine surgery - review of literature. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther, 2022, 54(1): 71-79.
55.	Yang H, Cheng F, Hai Y, et al. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol, 2023, 13: 1089981.
56.	Heo DH, Son SK, Eum JH, et al. Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results. Neurosurg Focus, 2017, 43(2): E8.
57.	Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK. Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery. Neurosurg Focus, 2019, 46(5): E9.
58.	Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, et al. Learning curve and clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion. Biomed Res Int, 2020, 2020: 8815432.
59.	Kang MS, You KH, Choi JY, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J, 2021, 21(12): 2066-2077.
60.	Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, et al. Comparison of minimal invasive versus biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg, 2021, 34(2): E64-E71.
61.	Liu G, Liu W, Jin D, et al. Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Spine J, 2023, 23(2): 271-280.
62.	Bui AT, Trinh GM, Wu MH, et al. Indications for and outcomes of three unilateral biportal endoscopic approaches for the decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(6): 1092.
63.	Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ. Risk factors and options of management for an incidental dural tear in biportal endoscopic spine surgery. Asian Spine J, 2020, 14(6): 790-800.
64.	Fan M, Fang Y, Zhang Q, et al. A prospective cohort study of the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive spinal surgery. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 47.
65.	Ghogawala Z, Dunbar M, Essa I. Artificial intelligence for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2019, 30(3): 383-389.
66.	Pearce P, Novak J, Wijesekera A, et al. Properties and implementation of 3-dimensionally printed models in spine surgery: a mixed-methods review with meta-analysis. World Neurosurg, 2023, 169: 57-72.

1. An H, Singh K. Synopsis of Spine Surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme, 2016.
2. Chan AK, Sharma V, Robinson LC, et al. Summary of guidelines for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2019, 30(3): 353-364.
3. Chan AK, Bydon M, Bisson EF, 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. Neurosurg Focus, 2023, 54(1): E2.
4. 钟绵森, 许伟, 钟远鸣, 等. 不同入路微创椎间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症的适应证和疗效研究进展. 山东医药, 2023, 63(26): 109-112.
5. 万大地, 袁野, 范鑫超, 等. 腰椎滑脱症的分类及治疗进展. 中国医药导刊, 2021, 23(3): 190-194.
6. Sakaura H, Miwa T, Yamashita T, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study. J Neurosurg Spine, 2016, 25(5): 591-595.
7. Said E, Abdel-Wanis ME, Ameen M, et al. Posterolateral fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Global Spine J, 2022, 12(5): 990-1002.
8. Cheung NK, Ferch RD, Ghahreman A, et al. Long-term follow-up of minimal-access and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery, 2013, 72(3): 443-450; discussion 450-451.
9. Tan Y, Tanaka M, Sonawane S, et al. Comparison of simultaneous single-position oblique lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using O-arm navigated technique for lumbar degenerative diseases. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(21): 4938.
10. Maruenda JI, Barrios C, Garibo F, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration and revision surgery after circumferential lumbar fusion: outcomes throughout 15 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J, 2016, 25(5): 1550-1557.
11. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(Suppl 15): S26-S35.
12. Badlani N, Yu E, Kreitz T, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Clin Spine Surg, 2020, 33(2): 62-64.
13. Bredow J, Meyer C, Oikonomidis S, et al. Long-term radiological and clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective 6-year follow-up study. Orthop Surg, 2022, 14(8): 1607-1614.
14. Heemskerk JL, Oluwadara Akinduro O, Clifton W, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Spine J, 2021, 21(12): 2049-2065.
15. Chan AK, Bission EF, Bydon M, et al. In reply: a comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an analysis of the prospective quality outcomes database. Neurosurgery, 2020, 87(5): E609-E610.
16. Tang AR, Chanbour H, Steinle AM, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion alone in the treatment of grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery, 2023, 93(1): 186-197.
17. Sato J, Ohtori S, Orita S, et al. Radiographic evaluation of indirect decompression of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerated lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J, 2017, 26(3): 671-678.
18. Xu DS, Bach K, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive anterior and lateral transpsoas approaches for closed reduction of grade Ⅱ spondylolisthesis: initial clinical and radiographic experience. Neurosurg Focus, 2018, 44(1): E4.
19. Lang G, Perrech M, Navarro-Ramirez R, et al. Potential and limitations of neural decompression in extreme lateral interbody fusion-a systematic review. World Neurosurg, 2017, 101: 99-113.
20. Navarro-Ramirez R, Lang G, Moriguchi Y, et al. Are locked facets a contraindication for extreme lateral interbody fusion?. World Neurosurg, 2017, 100: 607-618.
21. Taba HA, Williams SK. Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2020, 31(1): 33-42.
22. Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1997, 22(6): 691-699; discussion 700.
23. Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Alvi MA, et al. Outcomes following minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion for degenerative low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2018, 167: 122-128.
24. 李振宙, 侯树勋. 腰椎退行性疾病微创外科治疗概况及展望. 中国骨与关节杂志, 2022, 11(9): 641-647.
25. Tay KS, Bassi A, Yeo W, et al. Intraoperative reduction does not result in better outcomes in low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with neurogenic symptoms after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-a 5-year follow-up study. Spine J, 2016, 16(2): 182-190.
26. Kotani Y, Ikeura A, Saito T. Comparative clinical analysis of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5/S1 versus minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for degenerative lumbosacral disorders. Spine Surg Relat Res, 2022, 7(1): 66-73.
27. Du W, Wang Z, Dong Y, et al. Recent efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with wiltse approach pedicle screw fixation for degenerative single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg, 2023, 171: E533-E541.
28. Zhu HF, Fang XQ, Zhao FD, et al. Comparison of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease: a prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2022, 47(6): E233-E242.
29. Zhou T, Fan W, Gu Y, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery combined with mini-incision OLIF and anterolateral screws rod fixation vs. MIS-TLIF for surgical treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Front Surg, 2023, 9: 1049448.
30. Li R, Li X, Zhou H, et al. Development and application of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Surg, 2020, 12(2): 355-365.
31. Pereira P, Park Y, Arzoglou V, et al. Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up. Spine J, 2023, 23(10): 1494-1505.
32. Lee SH, Choi WG, Lim SR, et al. Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine J, 2004, 4(6): 644-649.
33. Khan HA, Stumpf NJ, Isbester KA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion reduces thecal sac compression in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine J, 2020, 20(7): 1035-1036.
34. Rathbone J, Rackham M, Nielsen D, et al. A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(6): 1911-1926.
35. Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, et al. Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med, 2018, 6(6): 104.
36. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg, 2015, 1(1): 2-18.
37. Van Isseldyk F, Liu Y, Kim JH, et al. Full-endoscopic foraminotomy in low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis: a patient-specific tailored approach. Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(8): 2828-2844.
38. 张斌, 孔清泉, 戎利民. 经皮内镜辅助腰椎椎间融合术的技术利弊分析及趋势展望. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2022, 36(6): 653-659.
39. Butler AJ, Brusko GD, Wang MY. Awake endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical note. HSS J, 2020, 16(2): 200-204.
40. Nagahama K, Ito M, Abe Y, et al. Early clinical results of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a new modified technique for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine Surg Relat Res, 2018, 3(4): 327-334.
41. Jin M, Xu G, Shen T, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis: percutaneous endoscopic or oblique lumbar interbody fusion. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(9): 639-650.
42. Lv Y, Chen M, Wang SL, et al. Endo-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF in 1-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis: a prospective randomized pilot study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2022, 212: 107082.
43. Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, et al. Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to MIS-TLIF? A prospective cohort study. Int J Surg, 2020, 76: 136-143.
44. Ge M, Zhang Y, Ying H, et al. Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop, 2022, 46(9): 2063-2070.
45. Zhu L, Cai T, Shan Y, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Pain Physician, 2021, 24(6): 441-452.
46. Hu X, Yan L, Jin X, et al. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Global Spine J, 2023: 21925682231168577.
47. Chang M, Wang L, Yuan S, 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, 2022, 25(1): E73-E86.
48. Stone CE, Myers BL, Gupta S, et al. Surgical outcomes after single-level endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus, 2020, 12(10): e11052.
49. Li Y, Cheng X, Chen B. Comparison of 270-degree percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression under local anesthesia and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of geriatric lateral recess stenosis associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg Res, 2023, 18(1): 183.
50. Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, et al. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg, 2010, 2(3): 194-200.
51. Jacquot F, Gastambide D. Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it?. Int Orthop, 2013, 37(8): 1507-1510.
52. 中国医师协会骨科医师分会脊柱微创学组. 水介质脊柱内镜下腰椎椎间融合术的临床应用指南(2022). 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2022, 24(9): 737-746.
53. Park DY, Upfill-Brown A, Curtin N, et al. Clinical outcomes and complications after biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 3673 cases. Eur Spine J, 2023, 32(8): 2637-2646.
54. Naftalovich R, Singal A, Iskander AJ. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for spine surgery - review of literature. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther, 2022, 54(1): 71-79.
55. Yang H, Cheng F, Hai Y, et al. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol, 2023, 13: 1089981.
56. Heo DH, Son SK, Eum JH, et al. Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results. Neurosurg Focus, 2017, 43(2): E8.
57. Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK. Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery. Neurosurg Focus, 2019, 46(5): E9.
58. Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, et al. Learning curve and clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion. Biomed Res Int, 2020, 2020: 8815432.
59. Kang MS, You KH, Choi JY, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J, 2021, 21(12): 2066-2077.
60. Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, et al. Comparison of minimal invasive versus biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg, 2021, 34(2): E64-E71.
61. Liu G, Liu W, Jin D, et al. Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Spine J, 2023, 23(2): 271-280.
62. Bui AT, Trinh GM, Wu MH, et al. Indications for and outcomes of three unilateral biportal endoscopic approaches for the decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(6): 1092.
63. Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ. Risk factors and options of management for an incidental dural tear in biportal endoscopic spine surgery. Asian Spine J, 2020, 14(6): 790-800.
64. Fan M, Fang Y, Zhang Q, et al. A prospective cohort study of the accuracy and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive spinal surgery. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 47.
65. Ghogawala Z, Dunbar M, Essa I. Artificial intelligence for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2019, 30(3): 383-389.
66. Pearce P, Novak J, Wijesekera A, et al. Properties and implementation of 3-dimensionally printed models in spine surgery: a mixed-methods review with meta-analysis. World Neurosurg, 2023, 169: 57-72.

Previous Article
Application of electrospinning for cartilage repair
Next Article
Research progress of frozen shoulder treatment

West China Medical Journal

Advancements in minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content