Five-year follow-up after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus decompression alone for grade 1 spondylolisthesis: are there any differences in outcomes?
Date
2025-08
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Repository Usage Stats
views
downloads
Citation Stats
Attention Stats
Abstract
Objective
The Spinal Laminectomy Versus Instrumented Pedicle Screw trial reported the superiority of fusion compared to laminectomy alone for patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. However, it remains unclear if the advantages of fusion extend to using minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques. This study compared 60-month outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus decompression for grade 1 spondylolisthesis.Methods
The authors analyzed patients who underwent single-segment MIS TLIF or MIS tubular decompression for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis from the prospective Quality Outcomes Database's 12 highest enrolling sites (SpineCORe team). Uni- and multivariable analyses compared outcomes including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction score, and cumulative related reoperation rate.Results
Of 608 total patients, 143 underwent MIS TLIF (n = 72, 50.3%) or MIS decompression (n = 71, 49.7%). The overall study cohort's 60-month follow-up rate was 86.8%. The MIS TLIF cohort was significantly younger (mean 62.1 ± 10.6 vs 72.3 ± 9.7 years), had lower rates of diabetes (9.7% vs 22.5%), higher rates of private insurance utilization (65.3% vs 26.8%), was more likely to be employed preoperatively (54.2% vs 23.9%), and had higher baseline NRS-BP scores (mean 6.9 ± 2.6 vs 5.6 ± 3.2, p < 0.05). Otherwise, the cohorts were similar in baseline characteristics. Sixty months postoperatively, both cohorts had significant mean improvements in ODI, NRS-LP, NRS-BP, and EQ-5D scores compared to their respective baselines (p < 0.05). MIS TLIF had a significantly lower reoperation rate (2.8% vs 15.5%, p = 0.008). The minimal clinically important difference rates for the ODI, NRS-LP, NRS-BP, and EQ-5D were equivalent (p > 0.05). MIS TLIF demonstrated significantly larger reductions in NRS-BP scores (-4.0 ± 3.5 vs -2.2 ± 3.4) and higher rates of satisfaction (NASS score 1 or 2 = 87.7% vs 74.5%; p < 0.05) but similar absolute 60-month ODI, NRS-LP, NRS-BP, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). On multivariable analyses, fusion significantly reduced the odds of reoperation (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.008-0.39; p = 0.006), but fusion status was neither a significant predictor of ODI, NRS-LP, NRS-BP, or EQ-5D scores, nor NASS satisfaction scores.Conclusions
Regardless of the surgical approach, a dorsal-based MIS technique was associated with clinical benefits in patients with grade 1 spondylolisthesis. These 60-month results demonstrate that MIS TLIF and MIS decompression are associated with similar patient-reported outcomes. However, MIS TLIF is associated with significantly fewer reoperations.Type
Department
Description
Provenance
Subjects
Citation
Permalink
Published Version (Please cite this version)
Publication Info
Chan, Andrew K, Vardhaan S Ambati, Pavan Upadhyayula, Dean Chou, Mohamad Bydon, Erica F Bisson, Steven D Glassman, Kevin T Foley, et al. (2025). Five-year follow-up after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus decompression alone for grade 1 spondylolisthesis: are there any differences in outcomes?. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. pp. 1–10. 10.3171/2025.5.spine25324 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/33165.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.
