Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 4, 2026
Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Published on: June 16, 2023
Comparative study between mini-open TLIF via Wiltse's approach and conventional open TLIF in lumbar degenerative
1Department of Orthopaedics, Taizhou People's Hospital affiliated to Nantong University, Taizhou, China. handsome_lhj@139.com.
Objective:
To compare the clinical effects, operation safety and radiation exposure of mini-open TLIF via Wiltse's approach (MOTLIF) and conventional open TLIF (COTLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease via the prospective control study.
Patients And Methods:
A total of 77 patients were enrolled from November 2012 to July 2014, including 42 patients in the mini-open group (MOTLIF) and 35 patients in the COTLIF group. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores before operation, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, blood transfusion rates, postoperative bedridden time, postoperative hospital stays, intraoperative fluoroscopic time, levels of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) before operation, 3 days and 1 week after operation, VAS scores before operation, 3 days and 1 week after operation, and ODI and VAS scores in the last follow-up between the two groups were compared.
Results:
There were significant differences between the two groups in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, blood transfusion rates, postoperative bedridden time, postoperative hospital stays and intraoperative fluoroscopic time; all indicators in MOTLIF group were superior to those in COTLIF group (p<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in levels of serum CPK before operation and 1 week after operation (p>0.05). However, 3 days after operation, the level of serum CPK in COTLIF group was increased more significantly than that in MOTLIF group (647.4±178.6 vs. 467.4±189.4). There were no differences between the two groups in ODI and VAS scores before operation; ODI score in MOTLIF group in the last follow-up was significantly superior to that in COTLIF group (p>0.05). And VAS scores at 3 days and 1 week after operation and the last follow-up in MOTLIF group were superior to those in COTLIF group (p<0.05).
Conclusions:
Compared with the conventional open TLIF, mini-open TLIF via Wiltse's approach using the self-designed operating apparatus is characterized by the convenient operation, small trauma and quick recovery after operation. At the same time, the radiation exposure is lower and long-term follow-up effect is superior. Its short-term and long-term effects in the treatment of lower lumbar degenerative disease are also superior.
