Objective:

To compare the clinical effecty of Wiltse approach combined with contralateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional TLIF in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and its affect on injury of multifidus muscle.

Methods:

From June 2014 to September 2017, 90 patients with lumbar disc herniation combined with lumbar spine instability were divided into two groups (Wiltse approach group and traditional group) depend on the procedure of operation. Wiltse approach group was treated with Wiltse approach screw placement in one side combined with contralateral TLIF. There were 50 patients in Wiltse approach group, including 36 males and 14 females, aged 45 to 72 yearswith an average of (60.4± 3.1) years. The traditional group was treated with traditional TLIF operation. There were 40 patients in the traditional group, including 25 males and 15 females, aged 45 to 74 years with an average of (62.1±3.4) years. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, accuracy of screw implantation, postoperative drainage volume and drainage tube removal time were recorded in two groups. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)were observed before and 12 months after operation. All patients underwent CT examination preoperative and 12 months postoperative, and the CT values of bilateral multifidus muscle were measured.

Results:

All the patients were followed up, 40 patients in traditional group were 12 to 18 months with an average of (15.3±4.3) months; and 50 patients in Wiltse approach group were 13 to 24 months with an average of (16.5± 4.1) months. There were no statistically significant differences in operative time and intraoperative blood loss between two groups (P>0.05). The accuracy of screw implantation in Wiltse approach group was higher than traditional group (P<0.05).There was no significant difference in preoperative VAS score and ODI between two groups, and 12 months after operation, VAS score and ODI in Wiltse approach group was significantly lower than traditional group (P <0.05). The postoperative drainage and drainage tube placement time in Wiltse approach group were lower than the traditional group(P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in CT value of multifidus muscle before operation between two groups (P>0.05), while there was statistically significant difference after operation (P<0.05). Postoperative CT values of multifidus muscles on decompression and non-decompression side were obviously reduced in traditional group (P<0.05). The CT value of the multifidus muscle on the decompression side of the Wiltse approach group was significantly lower than that before operation(P<0.05), and there was no significant difference before and after the operation on the non-decompression side (P>0.05).

Conclusion:

Compared with traditional surgical procedures, the Wiltse approach nail placement combined with contralateral TLIF has the advantage of accurate nail placement, reducing multifidus muscle damage, and reducing the incidence of postoperative intractable low back pain.