Objective To summarize the progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods The relevant literature about percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed, the approaches, technical characteristics, short- and long-term effectiveness, and complications of different surgical procedures were summarized. Results Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and reliable treatment. At present, the main surgical methods in clinical application can be roughly summarized as percutaneous endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PTLIF), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic oblique lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-OLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion/Z’s percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF/ZELIF), and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF). Each surgical method has its own technical characteristics and development. Conclusion Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a kind of combined technology based on the individualization of the patient’s anatomical structure and the technical differentiation of the surgeon. Surgical experience, choosing adaptive indication and operative way reasonably are the key for the success.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of O-arm navigation and ultrasound volume navigation (UVN) in guiding screw placement during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery. Methods Sixty patients who underwent MIS-TLIF surgery for lumbar disc herniation between June 2022 and June 2023 and met the selection criteria were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to group A (screw placement guided by UVN during MIS-TLIF) or group B (screw placement guided by O-arm navigation during MIS-TLIF), with 30 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in baseline data, including gender, age, body mass index, and surgical segment, between the two groups (P>0.05). Intraoperative data, including average single screw placement time, total radiation dose, and average single screw effective radiation dose, were recorded and calculated. Postoperatively, X-ray film and CT scans were performed at 10 days to evaluate screw placement accuracy and assess facet joint violation. Pearson correlation and Spearman correlation analyses were used to observe the relationship between the studied parameters (average single screw placement time and screw placement accuracy grading) and BMI. Results The average single screw placement time in group B was significantly shorter than that in group A, and the total radiation dose of single segment and multi-segment and the average single screw effective radiation dose in group B were significantly higher than those in group A (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total radiation dose between single segment and multiple segments in group B (P>0.05), while the total radiation dose of multiple segments was significantly higher than that of single segment in group A (P<0.05). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of screw implantation between the two groups (P>0.05). In both groups, the grade 1 and grade 2 screws broke through the outer wall of the pedicle, and no screw broke through the inner wall of the pedicle. There was no significant difference in the rate of facet joint violation between the two groups (P>0.05). In group A, both the average single screw placement time and screw placement accuracy grading were positively correlated with BMI (r=0.677, P<0.001; r=0.222, P=0.012), while in group B, neither of them was correlated with BMI (r=0.224, P=0.233; r=0.034, P=0.697). Conclusion UVN-guided screw placement in MIS-TLIF surgery demonstrates comparable efficiency, visualization, and accuracy to O-arm navigation, while significantly reducing radiation exposure. However, it may be influenced by factors such as obesity, which poses certain limitations.
ObjectiveTo observe the difference between crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) combined with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsThe clinical data of DLS combined with LSS patients meeting the selection criteria admitted between May 2018 and May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into CLIF group (33 cases) and TLIF group (32 cases). There were no significant differences (P>0.05) between the two groups in gender, age, disease duration, lesion segments, lumbar bone mineral density, degree of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, lumbar lordosis (LL), and segmental lordosis (SL). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Lumbar CT scan was performed at last follow-up to compare the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups. Intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL were measured before operation, at 2 weeks, 3 months after operation, and at last follow-up. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the pain and improvement of the quality of life of the patients.ResultsThere were no neurological and vascular complications in the two groups. The operation time and intraoperative blood loss in CLIF group were significantly less than those in TLIF group (P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up for a median time of 18 months. All the incisions healed by first intention except 1 incision in TLIF group because of poor blood glucose control. No complications such as bedsore, falling pneumonia, and deep venous thrombosis were found in both groups. At last follow-up, the intervertebral fusion rates in CLIF and TLIF group were 90.91% (30/33) and 93.75% (30/32), respectively, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.185, P=0.667). The VAS score, ODI, intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL were significantly improved in both groups at each time point after operation (P<0.05). Except that VAS score in CLIF group was significantly lower than that in TLIF group at 2 weeks after operation (Z=?4.303, P=0.000), there were no significant differences in VAS score and ODI between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL in CLIF group were significantly higher than those in TLIF group at each time point after operation, and the differences were significant (P<0.05).ConclusionCLIF in the treatment of DLS combined with LSS can achieve the similar effectiveness with traditional TLIF, and has such advantages as minimal invasion and faster recovery.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical significance of individualized reference model of sagittal curves by three-dimensional (3D) printing technique and computer-aided navigation system for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
MethodsBetween February 2011 and October 2012, 66 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by traditional operation in 36 cases (control group) and by individualized reference model of sagittal curves by 3D printing technique and computer-aided navigation system in 30 cases (trial group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, segment, type of disease, degree of spondylolisthesis, and preoperative the visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, VAS score of low back pain and leg pain were compared between 2 groups; the sagittal screw angle (SSA), accuracy rate of pedicle screw, Taillard index, disc height recovery rate, and sagittal angle recovery rate were compared between 2 groups.
ResultsThere was no significant difference in operation time and blood loss between 2 groups (P>0.05). But fluoroscopy times of control group were significantly higher than those of trial group (P<0.05). One case had radicular symptoms after operation in control group. The patients of 2 groups were followed up 24-36 months (mean, 26 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain at last follow-up were significantly better than pre-operative scores in 2 groups (P<0.05); VAS score of low back pain in trial group at last follow-up was significantly lower than that in control group (P<0.05). The accuracy rate of pedicle screw was 81.9% (118/144) in control group and 91.7% (110/120) in trial group, showing significant difference (χ2=5.25, P=0.03). There was significant difference in SSA between 2 groups at immediate after operation (t=-6.21, P=0.00). At immediate after operation and last follow-up, Taillard index, disc height recovery rate, and sagittal angle recovery rate in trial group were significantly better than those in control group (P<0.05).
ConclusionPLIF by individualized reference model of sagittal curves by 3D printing technique and computer-aided navigation system can effectively correct spondylolisthesis, recover the lumbar sagittal angle and improve the VAS score of low back pain though it has similar operation time and blood loss to traditional PLIF.
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.
Objective To compare the mid-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted with three-dimensional microscope in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods A total of 41 single level lumbar spondylolisthesis patients who met the selection criteria were retrospectively collected between June 2018 and September 2019. Twenty-three patients were treated with UBE-TLIF (study group) and 18 with MIS-TLIF assisted with three-dimensional microscope (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, Meyerding degree of slippage, type of spondylolisthesis, lesion segment, course of disease, and preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) level, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), and disc height (DH) between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss, Hb level between preoperative and postoperative at 1 day, and complications were compared between the two groups. The recovery of clinical sign and symptom was evaluated by VAS score and ODI before operation, and at 1 month, 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years after operation. The LL and DH were measured by radiography before operation and at last follow-up, and the fusion rate was calculated according to Suk grade at last follow-up. ResultsAll the operations were successfully completed. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups (P>0.05); the hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss, and Hb difference between pre- and post-operation in the study group were significantly less than those in the control group (P<0.05). Both groups were followed up 36-48 months, with an average of 39.2 months. In the study group, 1 case of dural tear and 2 cases of Cage subsidence occurred, without postoperative infection and epidural hematoma; in the control group, infection occurred in 1 case, dural tear in 2 cases, Cage subsidence in 1 case, and no epidural hematoma occurred; there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (13.04% vs. 22.22%) (χ2=0.601, P=0.438). The VAS score and ODI at each time point after operation in both groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation, and further improved with time (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05); the ODI of the study group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 1 and 3 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The imaging test showed that the intervertebral fusion rates were 95.7% in the study group and 94.4% in the control group at last follow-up, with no significant difference (χ2=0.032, P=0.859). At last follow-up, LL and DH in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and the difference between before and after operation showed no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionBoth UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF assisted with three-dimensional microscope have the advantages of clear intraoperative field and high surgical efficiency in treating lumbar spondylolisthesis, and can obtain satisfactory mid-term effectiveness. Compared with MIS-TLIF assisted with three-dimensional microscope, UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less bleeding and faster recovery.
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.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. Methods A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Results Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences (P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation (P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months (P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). ConclusionFor the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsA retrospective analysis was made of 161 patients with single segment L4 or L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis treated between January 2013 and December 2015. According to the implantation of Cage, they were divided into trial group (85 cases, modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage implanted in TLIF) and control group (76 cases, traditional nondirection-changeable Cage implanted in TLIF). There was no significant difference in the general data of gender, age, disease duration, slippage segment, and slippage grade between the two groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative implantation time of Cage, Cage position adjustments times, fluoroscopy times during implantation of Cage, fluoroscopy exposure time, and total operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the patients before operation, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and the incidence of complications was recorded and analyzed. CT examinations were performed at 6 and 12 months after operation, and lumbar fusion was evaluated by Bridwell criteria.ResultsThe intraoperative implantation time of Cage, Cage position adjustments times, fluoroscopy times during implantation of Cage, fluoroscopy exposure time, and total operation time in trial group were significant less than those in control group (P<0.05). All the 161 patients were followed up 12-18 months (mean, 14.3 months). There was 1 case of dural sac tear in the trial group and 1 case of superficial infection in the control group; no complication such as dural tear and infection occurred in other patients. The fusion rate was 76.5% (64/85) in the trial group and 57.9% (44/76) in the control group at 6 months after operation, showing significant difference (χ2=6.44, P=0.02); at 12 months after operation, the fusion rate was 96.5% (82/85) in the trial group and 90.8% (69/76) in the control group (including 3 cases of Cage displacement and 4 cases of screw breakage), showing no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups (χ2=1.54, P=0.26). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups decreased gradually at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and improved significantly when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups before and after operation (P>0.05).ConclusionBoth Cages can obtain the similar effectiveness. The modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage can significantly reduce the fluoroscopy times and radiation dose during TLIF, shorten the operation time, and effectively reduce the radiation exposure of patients and medical staff.
