Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF

Comparing OLIF Combined with Lateral Screw Fixation versus Minimally Invasive TLIF for Treating Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

 The present study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with lateral screw fixation and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) for the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

METHODS

 Data regarding clinical and radiologic outcomes for single-level DLS treated using OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation or Mis-TLIF between November 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

 Seventy-five patients with single-level DLS (≥2 years' follow-up) were included and divided into two groups according to the surgical method used: OLIF (n = 33) and Mis-TLIF (n = 42). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the OLIF group than that in the Mis-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in preoperative low back pain (LBP), leg pain (LP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups, although the OLIF group had significantly lower LBP VAS scores at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Additionally, the LP VAS score was significantly lower in the Mis-TLIF group than that in the OLIF group at 1 month postoperatively, and the ODI of the OLIF group at 3 months postoperatively was significantly lower than that of the Mis-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis angles between the two groups, whereas the postoperative surgical segmental lordosis angle and disk height (at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months) in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (18.2% in the OLIF group vs. 11.9% in the Mis-TLIF group; p = 0.520).

CONCLUSION

 OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation yielded better clinical and radiologic outcomes than Mis-TLIF in patients with single-level DLS.

Comparison of mid-term outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

Patients with L4-S1 disease treated with fusion surgery in our department between August 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were categorized into ULIF and MIS-TLIF groups based on the surgical method performed. The preoperative demographic baseline and operation-related indicators of the groups were compared, including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage volume, time to ambulation, and postoperative hospital stay. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was utilized to assess the severity of back pain (VAS-B) and leg pain (VAS-L). The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were employed to evaluate the level of functionality. Bridwell criteria were used to evaluate interbody fusion. The lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), intervertebral disc height (IDH), and segmental lordotic angle (SLA) pre- and post-operatively were compared. The creatine kinase (CK), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels pre- and post-operatively, and the complication rates were compared.

RESULTS

The baseline preoperative demographics of the ULIF (n=35) and MIS-TLIF (n=42) groups did not differ significantly. Compared with MIS-TLIF, ULIF had lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume and shorter time to ambulation and postoperative hospital stay, but longer operative time. The VAS-B, VAS-L, JOA, and ODI scores of both groups significantly improved. The VAS-L at 1 week postoperatively, the VAS-B at 1 week and 1 month postoperatively, and the JOA and ODI scores at 1 month postoperatively were better in the ULIF group. At 1 and 3 days postoperatively, the ULIF group exhibited substantially reduced levels of CRP, CK, and IL-6. The fusion rates did not differ significantly at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years of follow-up. The IDH, SLA, and LLA improved significantly in both groups but no significant differences were observed between the two groups. Complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ULIF and MIS-TLIF are proven to be safe and effective minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques. Both achieve comparable outcomes in terms of interbody fusion rate, long-term pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate. Compared with MIS-TLIF, ULIF has less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage volume, reduced inflammatory reaction, and faster postoperative pain relief and functional improvement.

Impact of Early Depressive Burden on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mental health influence on minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Poor mental health has been postulated to indicate inferior patient perceptions of surgical outcomes in spine literature. Few studies have assessed mental health as a dynamic metric throughout the perioperative period.

METHODS

A single-surgeon database was retrospectively searched for patients who underwent primary, elective MIS-TLIF for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Summative depressive burden (SDB) was defined by the sum of preoperative and 6-week postoperative 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with Lesser Burden (LB, SDB<10) and Greater Burden (GB, SDB≥10) cohorts. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were compared preoperatively, at 6 weeks, and at final postoperative follow-up (11.4±10.9 mo), using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale-back (VAS-B), VAS-leg (VAS-L), and PHQ-9. Improvements at 6-week (∆PROM-6W), final follow-up (∆PROM-FF), and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement were compared.

RESULTS

The GB cohort consisted of 44 of 105 patients. Demographic variations included older age, higher Charlson comorbidity index, increased hypertension prevalence, and private insurance in the LB cohort ( P ≤0.018). The LB cohort demonstrated better baseline and 6-week PROMIS-PF/ODI/VAS-L ( P ≤0.032) and better final PROMIS-PF/ODI/VAS-L/PHQ-9 ( P ≤0.031). Both cohorts improved in all PROMs at 6 weeks and final follow-up ( P ≤0.029), except for PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks in the GB cohort. ∆PROM-6W, ∆PROM-FF, and MCID achievement rate for PHQ-9 were greater in the GB cohort ( P ≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

On average, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis improved in all PROMs by final follow-up. Patients with GB suffered inferior perceptions of physical function, disability, and leg pain. MCID rates in mental health were higher for GB cohort. Surgeons are encouraged to adopt a compassionate understanding of depressive burden and educate the patient on possible consequential postoperative outcomes.

Rapid preparation of bioactive composites for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

The current stem cell tissue engineering always requires in vitro cell culture. To solve this problem, the bone mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) screen-enrich-combine circulating system (SECCS) was created to rapidly enrich stem cells and combined with β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) to immediately produce bioactive MSCs/β-TCP composites. 37 patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery were included in this study and randomly divided into two groups. One group uses laminal bone grafts (LBG) for intervertebral fusion, and another group uses MSCs/β-TCP composites. The new technique could quickly and selectively enrich stem cells from the bone marrow and simultaneously implant them into the intervertebral space during operation. The cells eluted from the β-tricalcium phosphate were confirmed to be stem cells based on their characteristics. Higher early fusion rates, similar intervertebral height decreases, and functional improvement tendencies were observed in the SECCS group when compared to the LBG group. The bioactive scaffold prepared by SECCS showed better osteogenic efficiency at the early stage of intervertebral fusion compared to autologous LBG, which provided a new bone scaffold substitute for autologous bone.

Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery (PTES) With MIS-TLIF for Treating Lumbar Degenerative Disease in Obese Patients

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes of obese patients with lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) receiving either percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) or minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

Methods

There were 26 patients underwent PTES, and 29 patients were treated with MIS-TLIF between June 2014 and June 2019. Various factors were compared between the two groups, including operation time, blood loss, incision length, fluoroscopy frequency, and hospital stay. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and complications were also recorded.

Results

Patients in PTES group showed significantly shorter operation time (54±10min vs 103±18min, P<0.001), lower blood loss (5/2-15mL vs 60/40-100mL, P<0.001), shorter incision length (9±2mm vs 41±3mm, P<0.001), reduced fluoroscopy frequency (5/5-10 times vs 7/6-11 times, P<0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3/2-4 days vs 6/4-8 days, P<0.001) than MIS-TLIF group. No differences in leg VAS scores were found between the two groups. However, PTES group showed significantly lower back VAS scores during follow-ups (P<0.001). At 2-year follow-up, PTES group also had significantly lower ODI scores compared to MIS-TLIF group (12.0±3.6% vs 15.8±4.9%, P<0.01).

Conclusion

PTES and MIS-TLIF showed favorable clinical outcomes for LDD in obese patients. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PTES has advantages of less trauma and faster recovery, and can be conducted under local anesthesia.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic vs. open surgery in the treatment of young obese patients' lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study

Background

Obesity accelerates the development of lumbar disease and increase the risk during surgery. Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a newly developed minimally invasive technique, which refers to the spinal surgery under unilateral double-channel endoscopic surgery. Therefore, the purpose of this study is whether UBE decompression alone can bring good clinical results to young obese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

The patients with lumbar diseases who underwent UBE and open surgery (open discectomy) in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2022 were selected as young (age ≤ 44 years old) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The patients were evaluated with VAS, ODI, JOA and modified Macnab score before operation, 1 month, 6 months and 12 months after operation. Nerve root function sensation, muscle strength and tendon reflex were evaluated. The operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications and reoperation rate were recorded. MRI quantitative lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM) comparison was performed 12 months after operation.

Results

77 patients were included, and the scores of VAS, ODI and JOA were similar in the two groups during the last follow-up. There were no difference in nerve root function sensation, muscle strength or tendon reflex. However, one month after operation, the VAS back score and ODI improvement in the UBE group were significantly better than those in the open group, which were 2.44 ± 0.97, 33.10 ± 6.78 and 2.93 ± 0.79 and 36.13 ± 5.84, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.020 and 0.038). According to the modified Macnab criteria, UBE group, the excellent and good rate was 97.2%. The excellent and good rate of open group was 97.6%. The estimated blood loss and postoperative hospital stay in UBE group (36.81 ± 17.81, 3.92 ± 1.32) were significantly better than those in open group (104.88 ± 31.41, 6.41 ± 1.94), with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.010). There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups (p = 0.070). The number of complications in UBE group was 2 (5.6%) and open group was 4 (9.8%). The fat infiltration rate of 19.3%+11.0% in UBE group was significantly lower than that of 27.0%±13.9% in open group (p = 0.010).

Conclusion

UBE has the advantage of early recovery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in young obese patients, and reduces the damage to LMM, so it has a good clinical effect.

Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are two minimally invasive lumbar fusion methods that have gained popularity in the past two decades. MIDLIF involves the use of cortical bone trajectory screws, whereas MIS-TLIF uses traditional pedicle screws. However, there is a significant lack of research directly examining the clinical efficacy of these two methods in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Hence, the objective of our retrospective study is to assess and contrast the surgical and clinical results of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. The study population comprised 133 patients diagnosed with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease that received treatment using either MIDLIF (n = 65) or MIS-TLIF (n = 68) in our department from January 2017 to January 2019. The fusion rates for MIDLIF were consistently lower than MID-TLIF at all post-operative time periods of follow-up, however, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. The 1-year fusion rates were 81.5% (MIDLIF) and 83.8% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.728), and the 2-year fusion rates were 87.7% (MIDLIF) and 91.2% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.513). The final follow-up fusion rates were 93.8% (MIDLIF) and 95.6% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.653). MIDLIF had several advantages over MIS-TLIF, including a shorter operative time (135.2 ± 15.70 vs. 160.1 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.001), decreased intraoperative blood loss (147.9 ± 36.4 vs. 169.5 ± 24.7 mL, P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (10.8 ± 3.1 vs. 12.4 ± 4.1d; P = 0.014). No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of the postoperative day of ambulation, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and lower back pain (P > 0.05). Although not significant (P = 0.707), MIDLIF (13.8%) had fewer overall complications than MIS-TLIF (16.2%). Therefore, compared to MIS-TLIF, MIDLIF provides perioperative benefits while achieving the same outcomes as MIS-TLIF in terms of fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Obese Patients : A Propensity Score-Matched Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of obese patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The perioperative benefits of minimally invasive surgery in obese patients have been described. However, there is limited literature on the patient-reported outcomes (PROs), satisfaction and return to work following MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in this subgroup of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Obese patients (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m 2 ) who underwent a primary, one-level to two-level open and MIS-TLIF were stratified and matched using propensity scoring. Operative time, length of stay, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Oswestry disability index, Short Form-36 physical component score, mental component score, visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain were compared at each postoperative time point. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient satisfaction and return to work were also assessed. Revision procedures were recorded at mean 10±3.3 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 236 obese patients were included: 118 open TLIF and 118 MIS-TLIF. Length of stay was longer in the open TLIF cohort and there was a trend toward a higher complication rate. However, there was no difference in operative time, transfusions, or readmissions. Patients who underwent open TLIF reported worse ODI ( P =0.043) and VAS leg pain at two years, although the latter did not reach statistical significance ( P =0.095). Achievement of MCID for each PRO, patient satisfaction, and return to work were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Obese patients who underwent MIS-TLIF had a shorter length of stay and improved functional disability at two years compared those who underwent open TLIF. However, a similar proportion achieved a clinical meaningful improvement. Patient satisfaction and return to work were also comparable at two years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Comparison of mMO-TLIF via Midline Incision Versus MIS-TLIF via Wiltse Approach in Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Background

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of modified mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (mMO-TLIF) via posterior midline incision for "targeted limited dissection" versus minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) via Wiltse approach in lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

A total of 60 consecutive patients in our center from January 2019 to March 2020 were enrolled, including 30 patients who were treated with mMO-TLIF via posterior midline incision and 30 treated with MIS-TLIF through the Wiltse approach. Perioperative parameters were recorded. The questionnaires of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) were conducted before the operation and after the operation (3 days, 1 week, and 2 years). CT and MRI radiological outcomes were evaluated before the operation and at a 2-year follow-up.

Results

There were no significant differences in the general data, gender, age, and BMI between the two groups. All patients were successfully operated without intraoperative complications. There were significant differences between the two groups in the operation time (p < 0.001) and intraoperative bleeding (p < 0.05). There was no difference in ODI and VAS scores between groups pre- and post-operatively, but they were both significantly improved compared to those before the operation (p < 0.01). At a 2-year follow-up, the paraspinal muscle atrophy and fat infiltration were increased comparing to pre-operation, but the difference was also not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In addition, both the two groups' fusion rates were more than 90% at a 2-year follow-up, however, no difference was detected between the two groups.

Conclusion

mMO-TLIF via midline incision for "targeted limited dissection" could achieve similar clinical and radiological outcomes as MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.

Biomechanical changes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with different fixation techniques in degenerative spondylolisthesis lumbar spine: a finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is a dearth of comprehensive research on the stability of the spinal biomechanical structure when combining Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) with internal fixation methods. Hence, we have devised this experiment to meticulously examine and analyze the biomechanical changes that arise from combining OLIF surgery with different internal fixation techniques in patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Seven validated finite element models were reconstructed based on computed tomography scan images of the L3-L5 segment. These models included the intact model, a stand-alone (S-A) OLIF model, a lateral screw rod (LSR) OLIF model, a bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) OLIF model, an unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) OLIF model, a bilateral CBT (BCBT) OLIF model, and an unilateral CBT(UCBT) OLIF model. The range of motion (ROM), as well as stress levels in the cage, L4 lower endplate, L5 upper endplate, and fixation constructs were assessed across these different model configurations.

RESULTS

S-A model had the highest average ROM of six motion modes, followed by LSR, UPS, UCBT, BPS and BCBT. The BCBT model had a relatively lower cage stress than the others. The maximum peak von Mises stress of the fixation constructs was found in the LSR model. The maximum peak von Mises stress of L4 lower endplate was found in the S-A model. The peak von Mises stress on the L4 lower endplate of the rest surgical models showed no significant difference. The maximum peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate was found in the S-A model. The minimum peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate was found in the BCBT model. No significant difference was found for the peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate among LSR, BPS, UPS and UCBT models.

CONCLUSION

Among the six different fixation techniques, BCBT exhibited superior biomechanical stability and minimal stress on the cage-endplate interface. It was followed by BPS, UCBT, UPS, and LSR in terms of effectiveness. Conversely, S-A OLIF demonstrated the least stability and resulted in increased stress on both the cage and endplates. Combining OLIF with BCBT fixation technique enhanced biomechanical stability compared to BPS and presented as a less invasive alternative treatment for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-year Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

Currently, there is no established guideline on whether to opt for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) or traditional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery based on specific types of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Based on the Michigan State University (MSU) classification system, this study conducted a medium- to long-term follow-up analysis of two surgical methods over 5 years for the first time, aiming to provide empirical evidence to assist in making more informed decisions before surgery for LDH treatment.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included 273 patients with single-level LDH who underwent PELD or TLIF treatment at our hospital between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Detailed metrics included preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1-day, 1-week, 1-year, and 5-year follow-ups. Complications, recurrences, and 5-year postoperative modified MacNab criteria scores were also recorded. Statistical methods included independent sample t-tests, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and χ2 tests.

RESULTS

Classified into seven groups according to the MSU classification, it was found that there was an improvement in the VAS and ODI scores at four postoperative follow-ups (p < 0.001). PELD showed better results than TLIF in reducing pain and improving the ODI scores in the classifications of 3B, 2B, and 2C (p < 0.05). TLIF demonstrated consistent superiority over PELD in 2A, 2AB, 3A, and 3AB classifications (p < 0.05). The total recurrence rate in the PELD group (11.05%) within 5 years after surgery was higher (p < 0.05) than that in the TLIF group (3.96%). These were mainly concentrated in the 2A, 2AB, 3A, and 3AB types. Moreover, the rate of excellent and good outcomes in the PELD was higher than in the TLIF but no significant difference (χ2 = 1.0568, p = 0.5895).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that PELD and TLIF may relieve LDH, but have advantages under different MSU classifications. The MSU classification has specific guiding significance and could aid in the surgical selection of PELD or TLIF to achieve optimal treatment outcomes for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

The efficacy of 3D gait analysis to evaluate surgical (and rehabilitation) outcome after degenerative lumbar surgery

BACKGROUND

Lumbar degenerative conditions are a major cause of back pain and disability in individuals aged 45 and above. Gait analysis utilizes sensor technology to collect movement data, aiding in the evaluation of various gait aspects like spatiotemporal parameters, joint angles, neuromuscular activity, and joint forces. It is widely used in conditions such as cerebral palsy and knee osteoarthritis. This research aims to assess the effectiveness of 3D gait analysis in evaluating surgical outcomes and postoperative rehabilitation for lumbar degenerative disorders.

METHODS

A prospective self-controlled before-after study (n = 85) carried out at our Hospital (Sep 2018 - Dec 2021) utilized a 3D motion analysis system to analyze gait in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. The study focused on the multifidus muscle, a crucial spinal muscle, during a minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery conducted by Shandong Weigao Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Pre- and postoperative assessments included time-distance parameters (gait speed, stride frequency, stride length, stance phase), hip flexion angle, and stride angle. Changes in 3D gait parameters post-surgery and during rehabilitation were examined. Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to assess relationships with the visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Patient sagittal alignment was evaluated using "Surgimap" software from two types of lateral radiographs to obtain parameters like pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), intervertebral space height (DH), posterior height of the intervertebral space (PDH) at the operative segment, and anterior height of the intervertebral space (ADH).

RESULTS

By the 6th week post-operation, significant improvements were observed in the VAS score, JOA score, and ODI score of the patients compared to preoperative values (P < 0.05), along with notable enhancements in 3D gait quantification parameters (P < 0.05). Pearson correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between improvements in 3D gait quantification parameters and VAS score, JOA score, and ODI value (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

3D gait analysis is a valuable tool for evaluating the efficacy of surgery and rehabilitation training in patients.

Early Compensatory Segmental Angle Changes at L3-L4 and L4-L5 After a L5-S1 Interbody Fusion for a Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

The retrospective study included patients who underwent an L5-S1 anterior (ALIF) or transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation for grade 1 spondylolisthesis from 2018 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE

To compare early reciprocal changes at the L3-L4 and L4-L5 adjacent levels 6 months after ALIF or TLIF at L5-S1.

BACKGROUND

Degenerative and chronic isthmic spondylolistheses often result in decreased segmental lordosis (SL) at L5-S1. This can lead to lordotic overcompensation at adjacent levels to maintain spinopelvic balance. However, the fate of adjacent angles after interbody fusion is not well understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Preoperative and 6-month postoperative measurements of SL (L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1), lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence (PI) were obtained from sagittal standing radiographs. Preliminary t tests were performed for descriptive purposes, and multiple regression was used for hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients met the inclusion criteria (50 ALIF and 48 TLIF). A greater amount of lordosis achieved at L5-S1 was significantly associated with a greater reduction of SL at L4-L5 ( r = -0.65, P < 0.001) or L3-L4 ( r = -0.46, P < 0.001). A greater preoperative PI was associated with a greater reduction of SL at L4-L5 ( r = -0.42, P < 0.001) and at L3-L4 ( r = -0.44, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

At 6 months after a lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1, greater compensatory changes with lordosis reduction are observed at the supra-adjacent L4-L5 and L3-L4 levels in patients achieving greater L5-S1 SL. In addition, preoperative PI played a role in influencing lordotic correction.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

This study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease.

CONCLUSION

In this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.

Comparative effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with anterior screw fixation versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lumbar degenerative diseases impose a substantial health burden, prompting the exploration of advanced surgical approaches such as Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of OLIF with anterior screw fixation (OLIF-AF) against OLIF with posterior pedicle fixation (OLIF-PF) in addressing these conditions.

METHODS

A systematic search across multiple databases identified five studies meeting inclusion criteria, incorporating a total of 271 patients. Comparative analysis encompasses primary and secondary outcomes related to fusion rates, intraoperative parameters, patient-reported measures, and radiographic assessments.

RESULTS

Primary outcome analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in total fusion rates between OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF. However, secondary outcomes revealed distinct advantages in OLIF-AF, showcasing lower intraoperative blood loss and reduced operative times compared to OLIF-PF. Nonetheless, patient-reported outcomes, encompassing measures such as pain scores and functional assessments, as well as radiographic parameters, exhibited no significant variations between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

While OLIF-AF displayed favorable results in intraoperative parameters, such as reduced blood loss and shorter operative times, it did not significantly differ in patient-reported outcomes and radiographic assessments compared to OLIF-PF. Interpretation of findings must consider limitations in sample sizes and study heterogeneity. Future investigations with larger, more diverse cohorts and extended follow-ups are imperative to confirm these preliminary findings and comprehend the actual clinical impact of these OLIF techniques in managing lumbar degenerative diseas.

What Preoperative Factors Are Associated With Achieving a Clinically Meaningful Improvement and Satisfaction After Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify preoperative factors associated with clinically meaningful improvement, patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment at 2 years follow-up in patients undergoing single-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a primary, single-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2006 and 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional spine registry. Baseline characteristics and PROMs including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS), Mental Component Score (SF-36 MCS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain, and VAS leg pain were collected preoperatively, at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 2 years.

RESULTS

A total of 997 patients were included. Multivariate analyses showed that increasing age (OR 1.039, P < .001) and better preoperative ODI (OR .984, P = .018) were associated with achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for VAS Back. Increasing age (OR 1.032, P = .007) and better preoperative VAS Back (OR .783, P < .001) were associated with achieving MCID for VAS Leg. Lower BMI (OR .952, P = .024) and better preoperative ODI (OR .976, P < .001) were associated with achieving MCID for SF-36 PCS. Importantly, a better preoperative SF-36 MCS was associated with MCID attainment for ODI (OR 1.038, P < .001), satisfaction (OR 1.034, P < .001) and expectation fulfilment (OR 1.024, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who were older, have less preoperative disability and better preoperative mental health were significantly more likely to attain clinically meaningful improvement in PROMs and postoperative satisfaction after single-level TLIF. Identification of these factors would aid surgeons in patient selection and surgical counselling for single-level TLIF.

Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the optimal surgical fusion approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis, to provide the latest and most reliable evidence for future clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant records. Two independent reviewers performed the literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of study quality.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 892 patients met the inclusion criteria. The network evidence plot showed that posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were the most used fusion techniques. The network meta-analysis results revealed that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) had a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared to endoscopic-TLIF, while PLIF had a significantly better fusion effect than posterolateral fusion. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed between other fusion surgeries in terms of improving ODI, fusion rate, complications, or the improvement of visual analog scale-low back pain. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve results indicated that MIS-TLIF had the greatest potential for improving ODI, visual analog scale-low back pain, and complications, while PLIF had the greatest potential for increasing fusion rates. However, the existing selection bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, and publication bias may have reduced the reliability of the meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the various fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF appears to provide the greatest benefit to patients. However, more high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the treatment efficacy of different fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of multi‑segmental lumbar degenerative disease: A systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis

The present study aimed to compare the differences between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar fusion (TLIF) for multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease regarding intraoperative indices and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases were searched for literature on MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases. Of the 1,608 articles retrieved, 10 were included for final analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Review Manager 5.4 were used for quality evaluation and data analysis, respectively. The MIS-TLIF group was superior to the open TLIF group regarding intraoperative blood loss [95% confidence interval (CI): -254.33,-157.86; P<0.00001], postoperative in-bed time (95%CI: -3.49,-2.76; P<0.00001), hospitalization time (95%CI: -5.14,-1.78; P<0.0001) and postoperative leg pain Visual Analog Scale score (95%CI: -0.27,-0.13; P<0.00001). The fluoroscopy frequency for MIS-TLIF (95%CI: 2.07,6.12; P<0.0001) was significantly higher than that for open TLIF. The two groups had no significant differences in operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative complications, fusion rate, or Oswestry Disability Index score. In treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less blood loss, shorter bedtime and hospitalization time and improved early postoperative efficacy; however, open TLIF has a lower fluoroscopy frequency.

Hybrid cortical bone trajectory and modified cortical bone trajectory techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: A finite element analysis

Background

The academia has increasingly acknowledged the superior biomechanical performance of the hybrid fixation technique in recent years. However, there is a lack of research on the hybrid fixation technique using BCS (Bilateral Cortical Screws) and BMCS (Bilateral Modified Cortical Screws). This study aims to investigate the biomechanical performance of the BCS and BMCS hybrid fixation technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L4-L5 segment in a complete lumbar-sacral finite element model.

Methods

Three cadaver specimens are used to construct three lumbar-sacral finite element models. The biomechanical properties of various fixation technologies (BCS-BCS, BMCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BCS-BMCS) are evaluated at the L4-5 segment with a TLIF procedure conducted, including the range of motion (ROM) of the L4-5 segment, as well as the stress experienced by the cage, screws, and rods. The testing is conducted under specific loading conditions, including a compressive load of 400 N and a torque of 7.5Nm, subjecting the model to simulate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation.

Results

No significant variations are seen in the ROM at the L4-5 segment when comparing the four fixation procedures during flexion and extension. However, when it comes to lateral bending and rotation, the ROM is ordered in descending order as BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BMCS, and BMCS-BCS. The maximum stress experienced by the cage is observed to be highest within the BMCS-BCS technique during movements including flexion, extension, and lateral bending. Conversely, the BMCS-BMCS technique exhibits the highest cage stress levels during rotational movements. The stress applies to the screws and rods order the sequence of BCS-BCS, BCS-BMCS, BMCS-BCS, and BMCS-BMCS throughout all four working conditions.

Conclusion

The BMCS-BCS technique shows better biomechanical performance with less ROM and lower stress on the internal fixation system compared to other fixation techniques. BMCS-BMCS technology has similar mechanical performance to BMCS-BCS but has more contact area between screws and cortical bone, making it better for patients with severe osteoporosis.

Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?-A Prospective Single Center Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the amount of reduction in lean muscle mass (LMM) of multifidus muscle (MFM) between conventional open Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CO-TLIF) as compared to Minimally invasive spine Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

This study was conducted between 2017 and 2020. It included 100 patients divided into two groups, 50 patients treated with CO-TLIF, 50 treated with MIS-TLIF. Only patients undergoing single level, primary lumbar fusion at L4-5 or L5-S1 level for degenerative pathologies were included. All patients were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 1-year post surgery. Measurements were performed using ImageJ image processing program.

RESULTS

Mean percentage reduction in LMM in CO-TLIF group was 45.52 ± 12.36% and MIS-TLIF group was 25.83 ± 9.64% [statistically significant (t = 8.78, P < .001)]. Mean percentage reduction in LMM on side of cage insertion was 39.63 ± 15.96% and opposite side was 31.40 ± 15.01% [statistically significant (t = 9.06, P < .001)]. Mean reduction of LMM among males was 29.38 ± 15.23% and females was 40.42 ± 12.67% [statistically significant (t = -3.95, P < .001)].We observed significant but weak degree of correlation between age and percentage reduction of LMM (r = .22, P = .028).

CONCLUSION

Mean reduction in LMM was greater in CO-TLIF group as compared to MIS-TLIF. There was greater reduction in LMM in females and on side of cage insertion. We also found greater reduction in LMM with increasing age in both groups.

Robot-navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay: analysis of 1,633 patients utilizing propensity score matching

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Navigation and robotic technologies have emerged as an alternative option to conventional freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. However, the effectiveness of these technologies in reducing the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery remains limited due to the small cohort size in the existing literature.

PURPOSE

To investigate whether utilization of robotically navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery-including reoperations-with a sizeable cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery between 2019 and 2022.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative complications including readmission, reoperation, its reasons, estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

METHODS

Patients' data were collected including age, sex, race, body mass index, upper-instrumented vertebra, lower-instrumented vertebra, number of screws inserted, and primary procedure name. Patients were classified into the following two groups: freehand group and robot group. The variable-ratio greedy matching was utilized to create the matched cohorts by propensity score and compared the outcomes between the two group.

RESULTS

A total of 1,633 patients who underwent primary instrumented spinal lumbar fusion surgery were initially identified (freehand 1,286; robot 347). After variable ratio matching was performed with age, sex, body mass index, fused levels, and upper instrumented vertebrae level, 694 patients in the freehand group and 347 patients in robot groups were selected. The robot group showed less estimated blood loss (418.9±398.9 vs 199.2±239.6 ml; p<.001), shorter LOS (4.1±3.1 vs 3.2±3.0 days; p<.001) and similar operative time (212.5 vs 222.0 minutes; p=.151). Otherwise, there was no significant difference in readmission rate (3.6% vs 2.6%; p=.498), reoperation rate (3.2% vs 2.6%; p=.498), and screw malposition requiring reoperation (five cases, 0.7% vs one case, 0.3%; p=1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative complications requiring readmission and reoperation were similar between fluoroscopy guided freehand and robotic surgery. Robot-guided pedicle screw insertion can enhance surgical efficiency by reducing intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay without extending operative time.

Effects of "fixation-fusion" sequence of lumbar surgery on surgical outcomes for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

New-onset neurological symptoms such as numbness and pain in lower extremities might appear immediately after conventional lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) surgery performed in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled trial investigating the clinical outcomes of modified LIF sequence versus conventional LIF sequence in treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. A total of 254 eligible patients will be enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either modified LIF sequence or conventional LIF sequence group. The primary outcome measure is the perioperative incidence of new-onset lower extremity neurological symptoms, including new adverse events of pain, numbness, and foot drop of any severity. Important secondary endpoints include visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score and lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) recovery rate. Other safety endpoints will also be evaluated. The safety set used for safety data analysis by the actual surgical treatment received and the full analysis set for baseline and efficacy data analyses according to the intent-to-treat principle will be established as the two analysis populations in the study.

CONCLUSION

This study is designed to investigate the clinical outcomes of modified LIF sequences in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. It aims to provide clinical evidence that the modified "fixation-fusion" sequence of LIF surgery is effective in treating lumbar spinal stenosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx ID: ChiCTR2100048507.

Retrospective analysis of robot-assisted laparoscopic transabdominal anterior approach for the treatment of lumbar paravertebral schwannoma

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this study was to investigate the impact of robot-assisted laparoscopic resection on paravertebral tumours using the anterior peritoneal approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis to identify patients with paravertebral tumours. A total of 21 patients, who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic transabdominal anterior approach surgery from March 2012 to August 2020.

RESULTS

The median operation time was 66.2 ± 14.5 min, with a range of 0-100 min. Intraoperative blood loss was minimal, with a median of 11.4 ± 7.9 mL and a range of 5-30 mL. The median tumour length was 4.8 ± 2.3 cm, ranging from 2.1 to 11.3 cm. Postoperative hospitalisation lasted for a median of 3.2 ± 0.9 days. During the 48-month follow-up period, no tumour recurrence or residual was observed in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of lumbar paravertebral schwannoma proved to be a safe and viable surgical approach. It offers a relatively new treatment option for paraspinal schwannoma.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

RESULTS

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: A 1-Year Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting.

METHODS

A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.

Comparing the Wiltse approach and classical approach of pedicle screw and hook internal fixation system for direct repair of lumbar spondylolysis in young patients: A case-control study

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effect of direct isthmus repair via Wiltse approach and classical approach in the treatment of simple lumbar spondylolysis in young patients. Thirty-three patients with simple lumbar spondylolysis underwent direct isthmic repair via the Wiltse approach (n = 17) or the classical approach (n = 16). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, hospital stay, fusion rate, visual analogue scale (VAS), and the Oswestry disability index were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups. The amount of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the duration of hospital stay in the Wiltse group were lower than those in the classical group (P < .05). There was no significant difference in Oswestry disability index score between the Wiltse group and the classical group at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after operation, but the visual analogue scale score in the Wiltse group was lower than that in the classical group at 6 months after surgery (P < .05). The Wiltse approach was comparable to the classical approach in terms of bone graft fusion time and fusion rate. The Wiltse approach for isthmus repair can achieve the same or even better clinical effect than the classical approach, and the Wiltse approach is more minimally invasive. Pedicle screw-hook internal fixation system combined with autogenous iliac bone graft via Wiltse approach is a feasible, safe, and effective minimally invasive surgical method for the repair of isthmic spondylolysis in young patients.

Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in postoperative efficacy between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Strictly based on the search strategy, we searched the published papers on OLIF and TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. A total of 607 related papers were retrieved, and 15 articles were finally included. The quality of the papers was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology, and the data were extracted and meta-analyzed using Review manager 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Through comparison, it was found that in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, the OLIF group had certain advantages over the TLIF group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segmental lordosis (FSL), and cage height, and the differences were statistically significant. The results were similar in terms of surgery time, complications, fusion rate, VAS for back pain (VAS-BP) and various sagittal imaging indicators, and there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF and TLIF can relieve low back pain symptoms in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but OLIF has certain advantages in terms of ODI and VAS-LP. In addition, OLIF has the advantages of minor intraoperative trauma and quick postoperative recovery.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) and mini-incision L5/S1 OLIF with a self-lock cage for the surgical treatment of L5 spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVES

We reported thirteen cases of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) under local anesthesia and mini-incision L5/S1 OLIF (OLIF51) with a self-lock cage for the treatment of L5 spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

From Jan 2019 to Feb 2020, the patients with L5 spondylolisthesis with nerve root symptoms undergoing PTES and OLIF51 were included in this study. PTES under local anesthesia was performed in a prone position, and OLIF51 with a self-lock cage and allograft was then undertaken through a left abdominal mini-incision and oblique retroperitoneal approach between bilateral iliac vessels with the external oblique, internal oblique and transverse abdominal muscles bluntly separated in turn for L5/S1 in a right oblique position under general anesthesia. Back and leg pain were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated using the VAS, and the clinical outcomes were evaluated with the ODI before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up. The anterior and posterior intervertebral space height (AISH, PISH), lumbar lordotic, and surgical segmental lordotic angle (SLA) were measured on lumbar spine X-rays preoperatively and postoperatively. The fusion status was assessed according to Bridwell's fusion grades.

RESULTS

Thirteen cases of L5 spondylolisthesis were included. The operation duration was 49.1 ± 5.6 min for PTES and 73.6 ± 8.2 min for OLIF. There was blood loss of 25 (15-45) ml. The incision length was 7.5 ± 1.1 mm for PTES and 46.8 ± 3.8 mm for OLIF. The hospital stay was 5 (4-6) days, and the follow-up duration was 29 (24-37) months. For the clinical evaluation, the VAS of back and leg pain significantly dropped after surgery (p < 0.001), and the ODI significantly decreased from 64.7 ± 7.8% to 12.9 ± 4.3% 2 years after surgery (p < 0.001). AISH, PISH and SLA significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05). Fusion grades based on the Bridwell grading system at the 2-year follow-up were grade I in 9 segments (69.2%) and grade II in 4 segments (30.8%). No patients had any form of permanent iatrogenic nerve damage or major complications. No failure of instruments was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PTES and mini-incision OLIF51 with a self-lock cage is a viable option of minimally invasive surgery for L5 spondylolisthesis, which can achieve direct neurologic decompression, satisfactory fusion and hardly destroys the rectus abdominis and its sheath, paraspinal muscles and bone structures.

Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study describes the benefits of MIS-TLIF (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and compares them with OTLIF (open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion). It compares blood loss, length of hospitalization stays (LOS), operation time, and return of the patient to the environment. A total of 250 adults (109 males and 141 females), mean age 59.5 ± 12.6, who underwent MIS-TLIF in the Neurosurgery Clinic (NSC) Ruzomberok, Slovakia, because of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), participated in this retrospective study. Data were obtained from the patients' medical records and from the standardized Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) index questionnaire. To compare ODI in our study sample, we used the Student's Paired Sample Test. To compare the MIS-TLIF and OTLIF approaches, a meta-analysis was conducted. Confidence intervals were 95% CI. The test of homogeneity (Chi-square (Q)) and the degree of heterogeneity (I² test) among the included studies were used. Statistical analyses were two-sided (α = 0.05). All monitored parameters were significantly better in MIS-TLIF group: blood loss (p < 0.001), operation time (p < 0.001), and ODI changes (p < 0.001). LOS (p < 0.042) were close to the significance level. ODI in the study sample decreased by 33.44% points after MIS-TLIF, and it significantly increased as well (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who were satisfied with the surgery they underwent was 84.8%. The study confirmed that the MIS-TLIF method is in general gentler for the patient and allows the faster regeneration of patient's health status compared to OTLIF.

Patient Frailty Influences Outcome After Open, But Not Minimally Invasive, Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Case Series of 115 Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disease

BACKGROUND

For transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), there are equally good open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if frailty has a differential effect on outcome for open vs MIS TLIF.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 115 TLIF surgeries (1-3 levels) for lumbar degenerative disease performed at a single center; 44 MIS transforaminal interbody fusions and 71 open TLIFs were included. All patients had at least a 2-year follow up, and any revision surgery during that time was recorded. The Adult Spinal Deformity Frailty Index (ASD-FI) was used to separate patients into nonfrail (ASD-FI < 0.3) and frail (ASD-FI > 0.3) cohorts. The primary outcome variables were revision surgery and discharge disposition. Univariate analyses were performed to reveal associations in demographic, radiographic, and surgical data with the outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess independent predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

Frailty uniquely predicted both reoperation (odds ratio 8.1, 95% CI 2.5-26.1, P = .0005) and discharge to a location other than home (odds ratio 3.9, 95% CI 1.2-12.7, P = .0239). Post hoc analysis indicated that frail patients undergoing open TLIF had a higher revision surgery rate (51.72%) compared with frail patients undergoing MIS-TLIF (16.7%). Nonfrail patients undergoing open and MIS TLIF had a revision surgery rate of 7.5% and 7.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Frailty was associated with increased revision rate and increased probability to discharge to a location other than home after open transforaminal interbody fusions, but not MIS transforaminal interbody fusions. These data suggest that patients with high frailty scores may benefit from MIS-TLIF procedures.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) are both minimally invasive interbody fusion procedures for lumbar degenerative diseases. In this study, we attempted to compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative outcomes of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised 99 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated by MIS-TLIF or Endo-LIF from January 2019 to July 2021. The clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and MacNab criteria) preoperatively, 1 month postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 1 year postoperatively were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, disease duration, affected spine segment, and complications (P > 0.05). The operation time was significantly longer in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group (155.25 ± 12.57 vs. 123.14 ± 14.50 min; P < 0.05). However, the Endo-LIF group had a significantly smaller blood loss volume (61.79 ± 10.09 vs. 259.97 ± 14.63 ml) and shorter hospital stay (5.46 ± 1.11 vs. 7.06 ± 1.42 days) than the MIS-TLIF group. In both groups, the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain were significantly lower at each postoperative timepoint than preoperatively (P < 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two groups in the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain (P > 0.05), the VAS for lower back pain was lower in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group at each postoperative timepoint. The MacNab criteria showed that the improvement rate was 92.2% in the MIS-TLIF group and 91.7% in the Endo-LIF group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in short-term surgical outcomes between the MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF groups. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-LIF group incurred less damage to surrounding tissues, experienced less intraoperative blood loss, and had less lower back pain, which is more conducive to recovery.

Comparison of the total and hidden blood loss in patients undergoing single-level open and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare total blood loss (TBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL) in patients undergoing single-level open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).

METHODS

A total of 53 patients who underwent ULIF and 53 patients who underwent O-TLIF from March 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The Nadler's formula was employed to estimate the patient's blood volume (PBV), Gross's formula to estimate TBL, and Sehat's formula to estimate HBL. The obtained data were then analyzed with independent t test, chi-squared test, and analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

TBL and measured blood loss (MBL) in ULIF group (326.86 ± 223.45 ml, 99.00 ± 72.81 ml) was significantly lower than O-TLIF group (427.97 ± 280.52 ml, 270.66 ± 102.34 ml). Nevertheless, the HBL in ULIF group was higher than that in O-TLIF group (227.86 ± 221.75 ml vs 157.31 ± 268.08 ml), however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.143). The HBL was 69.71 ± 23.72% of TBL in ULIF group and 36.76 ± 18.79% of TBL in O-TLIF group. Patients in ULIF group had lower TBL and MBL, shorter duration of drainage, lower postoperative anemia, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to those in O-TLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative HBL should not be neglected in patients undergoing ULIF or O-TILF, as it accounts for a large percentage of TBL in both groups. ULIF is associated with lower TBL and MBL, postoperative anemia, shorter postoperative hospital stays compared with O-TLIF.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Setting with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach to surgical care that aims to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Its application to spine surgery has been increasing in recent years, with a notable focus on lumbar fusion. This study describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of the first ERAS pathway for ambulatory spine surgery and the largest ambulatory minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) series to date.

METHODS

A comprehensive protocol for ambulatory lumbar fusion is described, including patient selection criteria, a multimodal analgesia regimen, and discharge assessment. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF using the described protocol at a single ambulatory surgery center (ASC) over a five-year period were queried.

RESULTS

A total of 215 patients underwent ambulatory MIS TLIF over the study period. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. All but one patient (99.5%) were discharged home from the ASC. Almost three-quarters (71.2%) were discharged on the day of surgery. Thirty- and 90-day readmission rates were 1.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Only one readmission (0.5%) was for intractable back pain. There were no reoperations or mortalities within 90 days of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS TLIF can be performed safely in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center with minimal perioperative and short-term morbidity. The addition of comprehensive ERAS protocols to the ambulatory setting can promote the transition of fusion procedures to this lower cost environment in an effort to provide higher value care.

Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to present the clinical and radiographical outcomes of the titanium-polyetheretherketone (Ti/PEEK) composite cage compared to those of the standard PEEK cage in patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

METHODS

Patients receiving 1 level MI-TLIF between October 2015 and October 2017 were included with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The patients were segregated into 2 groups; Ti/PEEK group and PEEK group. Each patient was propensity-matched using preoperative age, sex, and body mass index. Early fusion rate was evaluated by computed tomography at postoperative 6 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 27 patients included in each group. The demographics, diagnosis, and surgical details were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The 6-month rate was 88.9% in Ti/PEEK group. The fusion rate and cage subsidence rate had no difference between the 2 groups. The complication rate in the Ti/PEEK group was comparable to that in the PEEK group. There was no difference in VAS and ODI scores during a 2-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Ti/PEEK composite cage was as safe and effective as the use of PEEK cage in MI-TLIF. The 6-month fusion rate was 88.9%. Our finding revealed comparable clinical results for surgeons using Ti/PEEK composite cages in MI-TLIF compared to those using the PEEK cage.

Study of single-level lumbar degenerative diseases treated by unilateral wiltse access with unilateral nail rod fixation assisted by a new automatic retraction device

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral wiltse transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with unilateral nail bar system fixation for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases with the assistance of a new automatic retraction device in a retrospective comparative study.

METHODS

A total of 46 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases from September 2019 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Bilateral nail bar fixation with bullet-type fusion cage (ctrl group, 24 patients) and unilateral nail bar fixation on the affected side with kidney-like fusion cage (study group, 22 patients) were performed in TLIF via wiltse intermuscular approach assisted by a new automatic retraction device. The differences in intraoperative blood loss, operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative drainage, bed rest, VAS score, ODI score, JOA score, serological creatine kinase (CK), the proportion of multifidus atrophy, modified Pfirrmann classification and intervertebral space height of the upper intervertebral disc were compared between the two groups based on clinical and imaging data.

RESULTS

Intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and postoperative drainage were significantly lower in study group than ctrl group, and there were no significant differences in bed rest time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time between them. In addition, there was no statistical difference in CK between the study group and the ctrl group at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was found in VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of lower limb pain, ODI index, modified Pfirrmann classification of the upper intervertebral disc and intervertebral space height of the upper intervertebral disc between two groups. The atrophy ratio of multifidus muscle was significantly lower in the study group.

CONCLUSION

The new automatic retraction device assisted unilateral TLIF surgery with wiltse approach combined with unilateral nail bar fixation is a simple, effective and easy to master surgical method for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases.

Kambin's triangle-related data based on magnetic resonance neurography and its role in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

The percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PETLIF) has many advantages as a new minimally invasive surgical technique, and its surgical approach passes through the Kambin's triangle. One of the greatest challenges in completing PETLIF is avoiding nerve root damage. In previous studies, the relevant anatomic data do not correspond well with current surgical techniques, and there is a paucity of studies based on magnetic resonance neurography (MRN), which is the clearest imaging method for nerve roots. The purpose of this study was to analyze the safety of the PETLIF at each lumbar segment based on measured results from the MRN imaging data and to propose a novel method of intraoperative positioning.

METHODS

The coronal images with the clearest course of nerve roots were chosen for retrospective observation. During the PETLIF, the secure region of the operation was considered to be a trapezium. The following parameters were measured, respectively: trapezoid area, height, and median line length, as well as the relevant parameters of the positional relation between the point "O," the most secure operating center point of the secure region, and each osseous anatomic landmark. And the data were compared with the size of the cage to obtain safety.

RESULTS

At L1-S1, with the downward motion of the target intervertebral space, the area increased from (67.94 ± 15.22) mm² to (140.99 ± 26.06) mm², and the height increased from (7.23 ± 1.17) mm to (12.59 ± 1.63) mm. At L1-L5, the length of the median line was increased from (9.42 ± 1.70) mm to (12.70 ± 1.88) mm. Even though it was reduced to (11.59 ± 1.99) mm at L5-S1, it was still longer than that at L3-L4. The safety obtained by the primary observational indicator was 34.52%, 33.33%, 53.57%, 96.43%, and 77.38%, respectively, at L1-S1. The safety obtained by the two secondary observational indicators was 77.38% and 95.24% at L3-L4 and 100% at L4-S1. There was no point "O" outside the anatomic mark line. The intraoperative positioning method of the point "O" was as follows: It was located medially and horizontally approximately 3/5 of the anatomic mark line at L1-L5; the horizontal distances were (0.48 ± 0.67) mm, (1.20 ± 0.89) mm, (2.72 ± 1.01) mm, and (3.69 ± 1.47) mm, respectively. In addition, it was necessary to locate (3.43 ± 1.41) mm inward at about 4/5 of the anatomic mark line at L5-S1.

CONCLUSIONS

The MRN allows clearer and more accurate visualization of the nerve roots, and the basic anatomic study of the Kambin's triangle based on this technology is of practical clinical significance. In the current study, it is believed that, during the PETLIF, cage implantation is the safest at L4-L5, followed by L5-S1; L1-L3 is more likely to cause nerve root injury, and L3-L4 is not less likely. To improve safety, a comprehensive individualized imaging assessment should be performed before surgery. This study also provides an easy method of intraoperative localization, which helps avoid nerve root injury.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort comparison study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P <0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCES

3.

Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Retrospective Matched Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Our study included 64 patients, with 32 patients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluoroscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.

Predicting prolonged postoperative length of stay risk in patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery: Development and assessment of a novel predictive nomogram

Objective

The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate a prediction nomogram model in patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery.

Methods

A total of 310 patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery were reviewed, and the median and quartile interval were used to describe postoperative length of stay (PLOS). Patients with PLOS &gt; P75 were defined as prolonged PLOS. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used to filter variables for building the prolonged PLOS risk model. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to build a predictive model using the variables selected in the LASSO regression model. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the predicting model was calculated and significant test was performed. The Kappa consistency test between the predictive model and the actual diagnosis was performed. Discrimination, calibration, and the clinical usefulness of the predicting model were assessed using the C-index, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis. Internal validation was assessed using the bootstrapping validation.

Results

According to the interquartile range of PLOS in a total of 310 patients, the PLOS of 235 patients was ≤P75 (7 days) (normal PLOS), and the PLOS of 75 patients was &gt; P75 (prolonged PLOS). The LASSO selected predictors that were used to build the prediction nomogram included BMI, diabetes, hypertension, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, anesthesia type, intraoperative blood loss, sufentanil for postoperative analgesia, and postoperative complication. The model displayed good discrimination with an AUC value of 0.807 (95% CI: 0.758–0.849, P &lt; 0.001), a Kappa value of 0.5186 (cutoff value, 0.2445, P &lt; 0.001), and good calibration. A high C-index value of 0.776 could still be reached in the interval validation. Decision curve analysis showed that the prolonged PLOS nomogram was clinically useful when intervention was decided at the prolonged PLOS possibility threshold of 3%.

Conclusions

This study developed a novel nomogram with a relatively good accuracy to help clinicians access the risk of prolonged PLOS in lumbar fusion surgery patients. By an estimate of individual risk, surgeons and anesthesiologists may shorten PLOS and accelerate postoperative recovery of lumbar fusion surgery through more accurate individualized treatment.

The Mini-Open Wiltse Approach with Pedicle Screw Fixation Versus Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Treatment of Neurologically Intact Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between the mini-open Wiltse approach with pedicle screw fixation (MWPSF) and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) in treating neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative studies assessing these important indexes of the 2 methods using Review Manager, version 5.4. The clinical outcomes are presented as the risk difference for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference for continuous outcomes with the 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ² test and I² statistics. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42021290078).

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies were included in the present analysis. The percutaneous approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss compared with the mini-open Wiltse approach. No significant differences were found in the total length of the incisions, hospitalization time, postoperative visual analog scale scores, postoperative Oswestry disability index, postoperative Cobb angle, postoperative Cobb angle correction, postoperative Cobb angle correction loss, accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement, and postoperative complications between MWPSF and PPSF. However, the incidence of facet joint violation was significantly higher in the PPSF group. In addition, MWPSF was associated with a shorter operative time, shorter intraoperative fluoroscopy time, lower hospitalization costs, better postoperative vertebral body angle and percentage of vertebral body height compared with PPSF.

CONCLUSIONS

Both MWPSF and PPSF are safe and effective treatments of neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures. Nevertheless, our results have indicated that MWPSF might be the better choice, because it has a shorter learning curve and decreased facet joint violation, operative time, hospitalization costs, and radiation exposure. In addition, MWPSF was associated with better improvement of the postoperative vertebral body angle and percentage of vertebral body height.

Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up.

PURPOSE

To compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4-5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.

RESULTS

There was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective surgical option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with spondylolisthesis. However, few studies have discussed oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with MIS-TLIF.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate postoperative improvements, complications, and reoperation rates between patients with LSS undergoing OLIF or MIS-TLIF.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 113 LLS patients who underwent OLIF (53) or MIS-TLIF (60) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between January 2016 and December 2018. We measured estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, reoperation, and complication incidence, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores, discal and foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58.81 ± 0.9 years. The TLIF group had increased operation time, blood loss, and hospital stays (p = 0.007, 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS and ODI scores significantly decreased while JOA and SF-36 scores significantly increased. The postoperative differences in main outcomes between the groups were insignificant (all p > 0.05). The OLIF group had the lowest rates of overall (9.8% OLIF vs. 12.9% MIS-TLIF), intraoperative (3.9% OLIF vs. 4.8% MIS-TLIF), and postoperative complications (5.9% OLIF vs. 8.1% MIS-TLIF), but the differences were insignificant (p = 0.607, 0.813, and 0.653, respectively). The reoperation rate did not differ significantly (3.8% OLIF vs. 3.3% MIS-TLIF) (p = 0.842). OLIF restored disc height (74.4 vs. 32.0%), foraminal height (27.4 vs. 18.2%), and lumbar lordotic angle (3.5 vs. 1.1%) with greater success than did MIS-TLIF.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing OLIF with LSS improved similarly to MIS-TLIF patients. OLIF restored disc height, foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle more successfully than did MIS-TLIF.

Comparison of outcome between percutaneous pedicle screw fixation and the Mini-Open Wiltse Approach with pedicle screw fixation for neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome between percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) and the mini-open Wiltse approach with pedicle screw fixation (MWPSF) for neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures.

METHODS

From January 2017 to January 2019, ninety-four patients with neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures were included in this study. In this retrospective study, forty-nine patients were operated with the PPSF and forty-five patients received MWPSF. The clinical information, surgery-related results and radiographic outcome were collected and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two groups in total length of incisions, blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) score. There was also no significant difference in the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement between two groups; however, the facet joint violation (FJV) was significantly higher in the PPSF group. The atrophic area of multifidus muscle in the PPSF group is significantly larger than that in the MWPSF group and the operative time of MWPSF group was shorter than that in the PPSF group. Meanwhile, the PPSF group obtaining significantly more cumulative exposure to radiation (p < 0.001). The result of vertebral body angle (VBA), Cobb's angle and AVH rate in the MWPSF group were significantly better than those in the PPSF group at the last post-operative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both minimally invasive treatment techniques (PPSF and MWPSF) are safe and effective in treatment of neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures. Nevertheless, our results indicate that MWPSF may be a better choice for neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures, since it protects multifidus muscle, and decreases facet joint violation, operation time, as well as radiation exposure. In addition, MWPSF was associated with better reduction of kyphosis.

[Prospective randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of low-dose and high-dose intravenous tranexamic acid in reducing perioperative blood loss in single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion]

OBJECTIVE

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to study the effectiveness and safety of intravenous different doses tranexamic acid (TXA) in single-level unilateral minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

The patients treated with single-level unilateral MIS-TLIF between September 2019 and October 2020 were enrolled and randomly classified into low-dose TXA (LD) group (n=39), high-dose TXA (HD) group (n=39), and placebo-controlled (PC) group (n=38). The LD, HD, and PC groups received intravenous TXA 20 mg/kg, TXA 50 mg/kg, the same volume of normal saline at 30 minute before skin incision after general anesthesia, respectively. There was no significant difference on baseline characteristics and preoperative laboratory results among 3 groups (P>0.05), including age, gender, body mass index, surgical segments, hematocrit (HCT), hemoglobin (HGB), prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), D-dimer, fibrin degradation products (FDP), activated partial prothromboplastin time (APTT), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatinine (Cr), urea. The intraoperative blood loss (IBL), postoperative drainage volume, operation time, total blood loss (TBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), blood transfusion, hematological examination indexes on the first day after operation, and the incidence of complications within 1 month were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

There were 3, 2, and 4 patients in the LD, HD, and PC groups who underwent autologous blood transfusion, respectively, and there was no allogeneic blood transfusion patients in the 3 groups. There was no significant difference in IBL, postoperative drainage volume, and operation time between groups (P>0.05). The TBL, HBL, and the decreased value of HGB in LD and HD groups were significantly lower than those in PC group (P<0.05), and TBL and HBL in HD group were significantly lower than those in LD group (P<0.05); the decreased value of HGB between LD group and HD group showed no significant difference (P>0.05). On the first day after operation, D-dimer in LD and HD groups were significantly lower than that in PC group (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between LD and HD groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in other hematological indexes between groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 1 month, and there was no TXA-related complication such as deep venous thrombosis of lower extremity, pulmonary embolism, and epilepsy in the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous administration of TXA in single-level unilateral MIS-TLIF is effective and safe in reducing postoperative TBL and HBL within 1 day in a dose-dependent manner. Also, TXA can reduce postoperative fibrinolysis markers and do not increase the risk of thrombotic events, including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

Single Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation Utilizing Computer Navigation and Robotic Assistance: Retrospective case review and surgical technique considerations

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine safety and short-term outcomes of single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with bilateral posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The article also describes surgical technique considerations for the procedure.

METHODS

20 patients underwent single-position LLIF with posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The patients were followed for a minimum of 3 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 211 ± 34 minutes, average blood loss was 51.25 ± 17 cc's, and average length of stay was 1.4 ± .75 days. There were no intraoperative complications, readmissions, revision surgeries, and no incidence of hardware malposition. Significant improvement in pain and ODI scores was noted at 3 month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated safety and short-term clinical efficacy of minimally invasive single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral posterior instrumentation utilizing robotic assistance and navigation. There are certain surgical technique considerations that must be followed to ensure optimal surgical workflow and predictable outcomes.

Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Effect of MIS-TLF Surgery in the Treatment of Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Orthopaedic Spine

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has already had a significant impact on surgical treatment (spine). Because they are less invasive, minimally invasive treatments are often preferred over open spine surgery. MIS and open spine surgery in terms of posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), lumbar disc herniation (LDH), and cervical disc herniation (CDH) were all observational studies based on randomized controlled trials. Seventeen RCTs and six observational studies were conducted. Chemotherapy had no effect on the long-term alleviation of the neck or arm pain in patients with CDH. In LDH, MIS was superior in terms of pain relief, rehospitalization rates, and improvement in quality of life. At the expense of increased perioperative endoscopic, readmission, and revision rates, MIS achieved a significant reduction in 2-year expenditures, fewer medical problems, and improved Oswestry score ratings. There is no evidence to support the use of MIS over open surgery for lumbar or cervical process disc herniation. In comparison, MIS-TLIF has several advantages, in addition to lower revision/readmission rates. However, MIS significantly increases the surgeon's radiation exposure, regardless of the patient's sign. However, the effect on patients is unknown. These findings could help patients make better decisions when comparing open spine surgery to minimally invasive spine surgery, especially given how much advertising is out there for MIS.

Comparison of Long-Term Efficacy of MIS-TLIF Intraoperative Implants in Patients with Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis and degenerative spinal disease are still an unsolvable surgical problem. It is still difficult to solve the complications related to postoperative osteoporosis, such as cage subsidence, displacement, and retraction. Expandable interbody cage is a recent innovation and an increasingly popular alternative to standard static cage. However, the clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF combined with expandable cage for the treatment of osteoporosis has limited reports. The purpose of this paper was to analyze the efficacy of MIS-TLIF with expandable cage in patients with degenerative lumbar disease with osteoporosis. Patients with osteoporosis who received single-level MIS-TLIF and were followed up for at least 1 year were included. The outcome measures are as follows: clinical features, perioperative period, and neurological complications. JOA score and VAS pain score were used to analyze the improvement of patients’ function. Imaging analysis included segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), intervertebral disc height (DH), and the ratio of cage height to preoperative DH (RCD). The final data analysis included 284 patients with osteoporosis. 178 patients used static cages, and 106 patients used expandable cages. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, surgical indexes, and JOA and VAS scores between the two groups. There was no difference in SL or LL between static group and expandable group. There was no significant difference in preoperative DH between the two groups. The RCD in the expansion group was significantly lower than that in the static group. The intraoperative and postoperative sedimentation rate in the static group was significantly higher than that in the expandable group. The use of expandable cages in MIS-TLIF has shown good results for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases with osteoporosis. Through appropriate surgical techniques, the expandable cage can reduce the risk of cage sinking.

Does MIS-TLIF or TLIF result in better pedicle screw placement accuracy and clinical outcomes with navigation guidance?

Background

Although previous studies have suggested that navigation can improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, few studies have compared navigation-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and navigation-assisted minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF). The entry point of pedicle screw insertion in navigation-assisted MIS-TLIF (NM-TLIF) may deviate from the planned entry point due to an uneven bone surface, which may result in misplacement. The purpose of this study was to explore the pedicle screw accuracy and clinical consequences of MIS-TLIF and TLIF, both under O-arm navigation, to determine which surgical method is better.

Methods

A retrospective study of 54 patients who underwent single-segment NM-TLIF or navigation-assisted TLIF (N-TLIF) was conducted. In addition to the patients’ demographic characteristics, intraoperative indicators and complications, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score were recorded and analyzed preoperatively and at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month and final postoperative follow-ups. The clinical qualitative accuracy and absolute quantitative accuracy of pedicle screw placement were assessed by postoperative CT. Multifidus muscle injury was evaluated by T2-weighted MRI.

Results

Compared with N-TLIF, NM-TLIF was more advantageous in terms of the incision length, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and analgesia rate (P < 0.05). The ODI and VAS scores for low back pain were better than those of N-TLIF at 1 month and 6 months post-surgery (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the clinical qualitative screw placement accuracy (97.3% vs. 96.2%, P > 0.05). The absolute quantitative accuracy results showed that the axial translational error, sagittal translational error, and sagittal angle error in the NM-TLIF group were significantly greater than those in the N-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The mean T2-weighted signal intensity of the multifidus muscle in the NM-TLIF group was significantly lower than that in the N-TLIF group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with N-TLIF, NM-TLIF has the advantages of being less invasive, yielding similar or better screw placement accuracy and achieving better symptom relief in the midterm postoperative recovery period. However, more attention should be given to real-time adjustment for pedicle insertion in NM-TLIF rather than just following the entry point and trajectory of the intraoperative plan.