Effect of preoperative contralateral foramen stenosis on contralateral root symptoms after unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a ambispective cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the correlation between the degree of preoperative contralateral foraminal stenosis(CFS) and the incidence of contralateral root symptoms after unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) and to evaluate the appropriate candidate of preventive decompression according to the degree of preoperative contralateral foraminal stenosis. Methods An ambispective cohort study was conducted to investigate the incidence of contralateral root symptoms after unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and the effectiveness of preventive decompression. A total of 411 patients were included in the study, all of whom met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and underwent surgery at the Department of Spinal Surgery, Ningbo Sixth Hospital, between January 2017 and February 2021. The study was divided into two groups: retrospective cohort study A and prospective cohort study B. The 187 patients included in study A from January 2017 to January 2019 did not receive preventive decompression. They were divided into four groups based on the degree of preoperative contralateral intervertebral foramen stenosis: no stenosis group A1, mild stenosis group A2, moderate stenosis group A3, and severe stenosis group A4. A Spearman rank correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between the preoperative contralateral foramen stenosis degree and the incidence of contralateral root symptoms after unilateral TLIF. From February 2019 to February 2021, 224 patients were included in the prospective cohort group B. The decision to perform preventive decompression during the operation was based on the degree of preoperative contralateral foramen stenosis. Severe intervertebral foramen stenosis was treated with preventive decompression as group B1, while the rest were not treated with preventive decompression as group B2. The baseline data, surgical-related indicators, the incidence of contralateral root symptoms, clinical efficacy, imaging results, and other complications were compared between group A4 and group B1. Results All 411 patients completed the operation and were followed up for an average of 13.5 ± 2.8 months. In the retrospective study, there was no significant difference in baseline data among the four groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative contralateral root symptoms increased gradually, and a weak positive correlation was found between the degree of preoperative intervertebral foramen stenosis and the incidence of postoperative root symptoms (rs = 0.304, P < 0.001). In the prospective study, there was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups. The operation time and blood loss in group A4 were less than those in group B1 (P < 0.05). The incidence of contralateral root symptoms in group A4 was higher than that in group B1 (P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference in leg VAS score and ODI index between the two groups at 3 months after the operation (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in cage position, intervertebral fusion rate, and lumbar stability between the two groups (P > 0.05). No incisional infection occurred after the operation. No pedicle screw loosening, displacement, fracture, or interbody fusion cage displacement occurred during follow-up. Conclusion This study found a weak positive correlation between the degree of preoperative contralateral foramen stenosis and the incidence of contralateral root symptoms after unilateral TLIF. Intraoperative preventive decompression of the contralateral side may prolong the operation time and increase intraoperative blood loss to some extent. However, when the contralateral intervertebral foramen stenosis reaches the severe level, it is recommended to perform preventive decompression during the operation. This approach can reduce the incidence of postoperative contralateral root symptoms while ensuring clinical efficacy.