FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY FOR LUMBOSACRAL DEGENERATIVE SPINE DISORDERS: A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL EXPERIENCE IN INDIA
Main Article Content
Keywords
Minimally invasive spine surgery; Lumbo-sacral spine; Lumbar fusion; Muscle-fat index; Degenerative spine disease
Abstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS) has emerged as an effective alternative to conventional open techniques for managing lumbo-sacral degenerative disorders by minimizing soft tissue injury while achieving adequate decompression and stabilization. However, Indian data evaluating comprehensive clinical, radiological, and paraspinal muscle outcomes following MIS in the lumbo-sacral spine remain limited.
Aim: To evaluate the clinical, radiological, and paraspinal muscle outcomes following minimally invasive surgery in patients with lumbo-sacral spine disorders.
Materials and Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Neurosurgery at a tertiary care center over 18 months. Fifteen patients aged above 18 years with lumbo-sacral degenerative pathology undergoing MIS were included. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Radiological parameters including disc height, lumbar lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion status, and screw placement accuracy were evaluated using X-ray, NCCT, and MRI. Paraspinal muscle degeneration was assessed using Muscle-Fat Index (MFI). Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests.
Results: The mean age of patients was 58.07±3.77 years. Significant improvement was observed in VAS (5.0±1.36 to 1.60±0.63), ODI (47.73±7.0% to 22.67±5.38%), and JOA scores (9.60±2.19 to 13.87±1.99) postoperatively (p<0.001). Disc height and sagittal alignment parameters showed significant improvement. Solid fusion was achieved in 93.3% cases. A significant increase in MFI was noted postoperatively (p<0.001). Complication rate was low (6.7%).
Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery in the lumbo-sacral spine provides significant clinical and radiological improvement with high fusion rates and minimal complications. Although MIS is muscle-sparing, measurable paraspinal muscle degeneration occurs, highlighting the need for long-term follow-up and rehabilitation strategies.
References
2. Skovrlj B, Gilligan J, Cutler HS, Qureshi SA. Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(1):1–9.
3. Pokorny G, Amaral R, Marcelino F, Moriguchi R, Barreira I, Yozo M, et al. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(10):2502–26.
4. Fu CJ, Chen WC, Lu ML, Cheng CH, Niu CC. Comparison of paraspinal muscle degeneration and decompression effect between conventional open and minimally invasive approaches for posterior lumbar spine surgery. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14635.
5. Sousa JM, Ribeiro H, Silva JL, Nogueira P, Consciência JG. Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):2101.
6. Hung SF, Liao JC, Tsai TT, Li YD, Chiu PY, Hsieh MK, et al. Comparison of outcomes between indirect decompression of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and MIS-TLIF in single-level lumbar spondylosis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):12783.
7. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(11):2265–70.
8. Liu L, Xue H, Han Z, Jiang L, Chen L, Wang D. Comparison between OLIF and MIS-TLIF in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an age-, sex-, and segment-matched cohort study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):13188.
9. Hung SF, Liao JC, Tsai TT, Li YD, Chiu PY, Hsieh MK, et al. Radiological and clinical outcomes of OLIF versus MIS-TLIF in lumbar degenerative disease. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):12783.
10. Song Z, Zhang Z, Zheng J, Zhang K, Wang F, Ran M et al. Short-term and mid-term evaluation of three types of minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):4320.
11. Yao YC, Chao H, Kao KY, Chen WC, Lee YC, Tu YK, et al. CT Hounsfield unit is a reliable parameter for screw loosening or cage subsidence in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):1620.
12. Rickert M, Fennema P, Wehner D, Rahim T, Hölper B, Eichler M, et al. Postoperative cage migration and subsidence following TLIF surgery is not associated with bony fusion. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):12597.
13. Ebrahimkhani M, Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):17892.
14. Phan K, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive versus open lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2016;87:498–506.
15. Wang MY, Cummock MD, Yu Y, Trivedi RA. An analysis of the differences in the outcomes between open and minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3):489–95.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Sagnik Roy
Senior Resident, Department of Neurosurgery, GIPMER, New Delhi
Shaam Bodeliwaala
Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, GIPMER, New Delhi
Anita Jagetia
Director Professor and Head, Department of Neurosurgery, GIPMER, New Delhi
Kalpana Bansal
Professor and Head, Department of Radiology, GIPMER, New Delhi
Priyanka Khurana
Professor, Department of Anaesthesia, GIPMER, New Delhi
