Objective To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive tubular TLIF (MT-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods A clinical data of 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, who met the selection criteria between August 2019 and August 2020, was retrospectively analyzed, including 35 patients in the UBE- TLIF group and 40 patients in the MT-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease type and duration, and surgical segment between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin (Hb) before operation and at 1 day after operation, the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36 scale), intervertebral disc height (IDH), sagittal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL), and the intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with MT-TLIF group, UBE-TLIF group had significantly longer operation time but less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay (P<0.05). The Hb levels in both groups decreased at 1 day after operation, but there was no significant difference in the difference before and after operation between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up, and the follow-up time was (14.7±2.5) months in the UBE-TLIF group and (15.0±3.4) months in the MT-TLIF group, with no significant difference (t=0.406, P=0.686). In both groups, the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, SF-36 scale, and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between 1 month after operation and last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and SF-36 scale between the two groups before and after operation (P>0.05). At 1 month after operation, the ODI in the UBE-TLIF group was significantly better than that in the MT-TLIF group (P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, IDH, Cobb angle, and LL in both groups recovered when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and were maintained until last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the IDH, Cobb angle, and LL between the two groups at each time point (P>0.05). Thirty-three cases (89.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group and 35 cases (87.5%) in the MT-TLIF group achieved fusion, and the difference was not significant (χ2=0.015, P=0.901). In the UBE-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear and 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma occurred, with an incidence of 5.7%. In the MT-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear, 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma, and 1 case of superficial infection of the surgical incision occurred, with an incidence of 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (χ2=1.234, P=1.000). Conclusion Compared with MT-TLIF, UBE-TILF can achieve similar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and has the advantages of smaller incision, less bleeding, and shorter length of hospital stay.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery.MethodsThe clinical data of 40 patients who underwent revision surgery due to Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery betweem April 2013 and March 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 18 patients underwent OLIF (OLIF group) and 22 patients underwent PLIF (PLIF group) for revision. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, body mass index, intervals between primary surgery and revision surgery, number of primary fused levels, disc spaces of Cage dislodgement, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), the segmental lordosis (SL) and disc height (DH) of the disc space of Cage dislodgement, and the lumbar lordosis (LL) before revision (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications of the two groups were recorded and compared. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were evaluated at 3 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and the ODI scores were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation. The SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement and LL were measured at 12 months after operation and compared with those before operation. CT examination was performed at 12 months after operation, and the fusion of the disc space implanted with new Cage was judged by Bridwell grading standard.ResultsThe intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group (t=?12.425, P=0.000); there was no significant difference between the two groups in the operation time and hospital stay (P>0.05). Both groups were followed up 12-30 months, with an average of 18 months. In the OLIF group, 2 patients (11.1%) had thigh numbness and 1 patient (5.6%) had hip flexor weakness after operation; 2 patients (9.1%) in the PLIF group had intraoperative dural sac tear. The other patients’ incisions healed by first intention without early postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (χ2=0.519, P=0.642). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the ODI score of the two groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). At 12 months after operation, SL, LL, and DH in the two groups were significantly increased when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05); SL and DH in the OLIF group were significantly improved when compared with those in the PLIF group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in LL between the two groups (P>0.05). CT examination at 12 months after operation showed that all the operated disc spaces achieved bony fusion. According to the Bridwell grading standard, 12 cases were grade Ⅰ and 6 cases were grade Ⅱ in the OLIF group, and 13 cases were grade Ⅰ and 9 cases were grade Ⅱ in the PLIF group; there was no significant difference between the two groups (Z=–0.486, P=0.627). During follow-up, neither re-displacement or sinking of Cage, nor loosening or fracture of internal fixation occurred.ConclusionOLIF and PLIF can achieve similar effectiveness in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery. OLIF can further reduce intraoperative blood loss and restore the SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement better.
Objective To evaluate the effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using single incision via MAST Quadrant retractor in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods From July 2008 to June 2009, 20 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor using single incision,including 2 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis and 18 cases of isthmic spondylolisthesis. There were 8 males and 12 females aged from 34 to 62 years (average 45.5 years). The disease course was 1 to 6 years (mean 34.5 months). The spondylol isthesis locations were L4,5 in 8 cases and L5, S1 in 12 cases. According to Meyerding classification, all cases were classified as degree I. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was (6.6 ± 1.2) points. The operative time, the blood loss, and the therapeutic effects were recorded. Results The operative time was (155 ± 23) minutes and the amount of blood loss was (360 ± 102) mL. The hospitalization time were (12.0 ± 3.4) days. All incisions healed by first intention. X-ray films showed spondylolisthesis reduction immediately after operation. All patients were followed up 14.3 months on average (from 9 to 20 months). The VAS score decreased to (1.6 ± 2.3) points at the last follow-up, showing significant difference when compared with that of preoperation (P lt; 0.05). The X-ray films showed that lumbar interbody fusion was achieved in all the patients. No lossening, breakage, and displacement of pedicle screw fixation was observed. According to Nakai standard, the results were excellent in 18 cases and good in 2 cases at the last follow-up. Conclusion As long as the indication is strictly chosen, PLIF via MAST Quadrant retractor is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive surgical technique in treating lumbar spondylolisthesis.
ObjectiveTo explore the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis.
MethodsBetween February 2008 and December 2013, 17 patients with double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion. There were 12 males and 5 females, with an age ranged 48-69 years (mean, 55.4 years). The disease duration ranged from 11 months to 17 years (median, 22 months). According to the Meyerding classification, 30 vertebrea were rated as degree I, 3 as degree Ⅱ, and 1 as degree Ⅲ. L4, 5 was involved in 14 cases and L3, 4 in 3 cases. The preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score was 8.6±3.2.
ResultsCerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases because of intraoperative dural tear; primary healing of incision was obtained, with no operation related complication in the other patients. The patients were followed up 1-6 years (mean, 3.4 years). At last follow-up, VAS score was decreased significantly to 1.1±0.4, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative score (t=7.652, P=0.008). X-ray films showed that slippage vertebral body obtained different degree of reduction, with a complete reduction rate of 85% (29/34) at 1 week after operation. All patients achieved bony union at 6-12 months (mean, 7.4 months). According to the Lenke classification, 13 cases were rated as grade A and 4 cases as grade B. No internal fixation loosening and fracture were observed during the follow-up. Intervertebral disc height was maintained, no loss of spondylolisthesis reduction was found.
ConclusionIt can obtain satisfactory clinical result to use spinal canal decompression by posterior approach, and screw fixation for posterior fusion in treatment of double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The key points to successful operation include accurate insertion of screw, effective decompression, distraction before reduction, rational use of pulling screws, and interbody fusion.
Objective
To compare the effectiveness of cortical bone trajectory screw (CBTS) and conventional pedicle screw for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single segment lumbar degenerative disease.
Methods
Between May 2013 and May 2016, a total of 97 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative disease were treated with PLIF. Fifty-one patients were fixed with CBTS in PLIF (trajectory screw group) and 46 with pedicle screw (pedicle screw group). There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, preoperative diagnosis, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, bed rest time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine kinase (CK) concentration, total amount of diclofenac sodium, perioperative complications, ODI, VAS score, and interbody fusion rate were recorded and compared between 2 groups.
Results
All patients were followed up 12 months. The patients in trajectory screw group had a significantly less operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and serum CK concentration when compared with the patients in pedicle screw group (P<0.05). Thirty-five patients (68.6%) in trajectory screw group and 46 patients (100%) in pedicle screw group were given diclofenac sodium within 48 hours after operation, showing significant difference between 2 groups (χ2=89.334, P=0.000). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between trajectory screw group and pedicle screw group (3.9% vs. 8.7%, P=0.418). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, ODI, and interbody fusion rate at 12 months after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05).
Conclusion
For the single segment degenerative lumbar disease, the use of CBTS or conventional pedicle screw for PLIF can obtain satisfactory clinical function and interbody fusion rate. But the former has the advantages of less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage, less perioperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and bed rest time.
Objective
To explore the clinical application value of the spinal robot-assisted surgical system in mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the accuracy of its implantation.
Methods
The clinical data of 56 patients with Meyerding grade Ⅰ or Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between January 2017 and December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Among them, 28 cases were preoperatively planned with robotic arm and percutaneous pedicle screw placement according to preoperative planning (group A); the other 28 cases underwent fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, slippage type, Meyerding grade, and surgical segmental distribution between the two groups (P>0.05). The screw insertion angle was measured by CT, the accuracy of screw implantation was evaluated by Neo’s criteria, and the invasion of superior articular process was evaluated by Babu’s method.
Results
One hundred and twelve screws were implanted in the two groups respectively, 5 screws (4.5%) in group A and 26 screws (23.2%) in group B penetrated the lateral wall of pedicle, and the difference was significant (χ2=9.157, P=0.002); the accuracy of nail implantation was assessed according to Neo’s criteria, the results were 107 screws of degree 0, 3 of degree 1, 2 of degree 2 in group A, and 86 screws of degree 0, 16 of degree 1, 6 of degree 2, 4 of degree 3 in group B, showing significant difference between the two groups (Z=4.915, P=0.031). In group B, 20 (17.9%) screws penetrated the superior articular process, while in group A, 80 screws were removed from the decompression side, and only 3 (3.8%) screws penetrated the superior articular process. According to Babu’s method, the degree of screw penetration into the facet joint was assessed. The results were 77 screws of grade 0, 2 of grade 1, 1 of grade 2 in group A, and 92 screws of grade 0, 13 of grade 1, 4 of grade 2, 3 of grade 3 in group B, showing significant difference between the two groups (Z=7.814, P=0.029). The screw insertion angles of groups A and B were (23.5±6.6)° and (18.1±7.5)° respectively, showing significant difference (t=3.100, P=0.003).
Conclusion
Compared to fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement has the advantages such as greater accuracy, lower incidence of screw penetration of the pedicle wall and invasion of the facet joints, and has a better screw insertion angle. Combined with MIS-TLIF, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement is an effective minimally invasive treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
ObjectiveTo summarize the guiding role of imaging evaluation of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in recent years.MethodsThe reports of OLIF surgical imaging research at home and abroad in recent years were extensively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsPreoperative imaging evaluation plays an important role in guiding the operation of OLIF, the placement of fusion Cage, the selection of indications, and the reduction of complications.ConclusionDetailed preoperative imaging evaluation can correctly estimate the indications of OLIF, and avoid the nerve, blood vessel, and muscle injuries.
ObjectiveTo review and evaluate the technical advantages and disadvantages and research progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. MethodsThe domestic and foreign related research literature on percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was extensively consulted. The advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness were summarized. And the development trend of this technology was prospected. ResultsCompared with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has less intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, better improvement of low back pain in the early stage after operation, and similar long-term effectiveness, fusion rate, and incidence of complication, but a longer learning curve. The operation time of biportal and large-channel uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion is close to that of MIS-TLIF, but the operation time of small-channel uniportal endoscopic fusion is longer than that of MIS-TLIF. ConclusionPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has the advantages of less trauma and good effectiveness, but its learning curve is long, and indications should be strictly selected for this operation. In the future, with the continuous development and complementation of various endoscopic fusion technologies, this technology will gain better application prospects.
The human spine injury and various lumbar spine diseases caused by vibration have attracted extensive attention at home and abroad. To explore the biomechanical characteristics of different approaches for lumbar interbody fusion surgery combined with an interspinous internal fixator, device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM), finite element models of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are created by simulating clinical operation based on a three-dimensional finite element model of normal human whole lumbar spine. The fusion level is at L4–L5, and the DIAM is implanted between spinous process of L4 and L5. Transient dynamic analysis is conducted on the ALIF, TLIF and LLIF models, respectively, to compute and compare their stress responses to an axial cyclic load. The results show that compared with those in ALIF and TILF models, contact forces between endplate and cage are higher in LLIF model, where the von-Mises stress in endplate and DIAM is lower. This implies that the LLIF have a better biomechanical performance under vibration. After bony fusion between vertebrae, the endplate and DIAM stresses for all the three surgical models are decreased. It is expected that this study can provide references for selection of surgical approaches in the fusion surgery and vibration protection for the postsurgical lumbar spine.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) combined with Prospace and facet fusion using local autograft. Methods Clinical and radiographic data of 76 patients treated by this technique was reviewed from May 2002 to December 2004. Of them, there were 52 males and 24 females, with an average age of 53.2 years (2381 years), including 60 cases of degenerative disc disease, 9 cases of failed back surgery syndrome and 3 cases of spondylolysis. The disese courses were 1.2-8.7 years (mean 3.6 years). The levels of PLIF were:L 2,3 in 2 cases, L 3,4 in 7, L 4,5 in 54, L 5/S 1 in 10, L 4/S 1 in 1 and L 5,6 in 2. After decompression，Prospace was inserted into interbody space bilaterally，and located in disc space 4 mm beyond the rear edge ofthe vertebral body. Local laminectomy autograft was packed both laterally into and between 2 implants. Then the remanent local autograft was placed over facet bed. Pedicle screws were used after insertion of Prospace. Clinical results wereevaluated by the JOA score. Disc height ratio and lumbar lordosis angles were measured on lateral radiographs. Fusion status was determined by evidence of bridge trabeculae across facet joint and interbody space on CT scan without mobility in lateral dynamic X-rays, and no radiolucent gap between Prospace and endplate. Paired t test was used for statistical analysis. Results Mean blood loss and operative time was 384 ml and 178 minutes, respectively. The average JOA score at final follow-up (26.1±2.7) was significantly improved when compared with that of preoperation (14.5±4.0, P＜0.05), with a mean recovery rate of JOA score 81.1% (37.5%-100.0%). The fusion rate was 974%(74/76). Mean disc height ratio and the involved segmental lordosis angle were increased from preoperative 0.27± 0.07 and 5.8±2.2° to 0.33±0.06 and 11.3±2.0° respectively at the final followup, and the differences were significant (P＜0.05). There were no devicerelated complications. Conclusion This surgical technique combined with Prospace interbody device is a safe and effective surgical option for patients with onelevel lumbar disorders when PLIF is warranted.
