Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation

Influence of instrumentation type on outcomes after surgical management of spondylodiscitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Spondylodiscitis refers to infection of the intervertebral disk and neighboring structures. Outcomes based on instrumentation type are not well reported in the literature, but are important in establishing guidelines for surgical management of spondylodiscitis. This study aims to clarify the effect of instrumentation material selection on clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with spondylodiscitis.

METHODS

Studies that evaluated the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium, allograft, and/or autologous bone grafts for spondylodiscitis were identified in the literature. Radiographic and clinical data were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportions, with estimated risk and confidence intervals reported for our primary study outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-two retrospective studies totaling 1088 patients undergoing surgical management of spondylodiscitis with PEEK, TTN, allograft, and autologous bone graft instrumentation were included. There were no differences in fusion rates (p-interaction = 0.55) with rates of fusion of 93.4% with TTN, 98.6% with allograft, 84.2% with autologous bone graft, and 93.9% with PEEK. There were no differences in screw loosening (p-interaction = 0.52) with rates of 0.33% with TTN, 0% with allograft, 1.3% with autologous bone graft, and 8.2% with PEEK. There were no differences in reoperation (p-interaction = 0.59) with rates of 2.64% with TTN, 0% with allograft, 1.69% with autologous bone graft, and 3.3% with PEEK.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the choice of instrumentation type in the surgical management of spondylodiscitis resulted in no significant differences in rate of radiographic fusion, screw loosening, or reoperation. Future comparative studies to optimize guidelines for the management of spondylodiscitis are needed.

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Lumbar interbody fusion stands as a preferred surgical solution for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The procedure primarily aims to establish lumbar segment stability, directly addressing patient symptoms associated with spinal complications. Traditional open surgery, though effective, is linked with notable morbidities and extended recovery time. To mitigate these concerns, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has garnered significant popularity, presenting an appealing alternative with numerous benefits such as reduced soft tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, and expedited recovery. Among MIS procedures, full endoscopic spinal surgery, characterized by its minimal invasiveness, holds the potential to further minimize morbidities while enhancing surgical outcomes. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, a novel procedure within this paradigm, has gained attention for offering advantages comparable to those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. However, the safety, efficacy, and associated surgical techniques and instrument design of this method continue to be subjects of ongoing debate. This paper critically reviews current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and advantages of endoscopic lumbar spinal interbody fusion, examining whether it could indeed supersede existing mainstream techniques.

Minimally invasive endoscopy in spine surgery: where are we now?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that offers comparable efficacy and safety with less collateral damage compared to conventional surgery. To achieve clinical success, it is imperative to stay abreast of technological advancements, modern surgical instruments and technique, and updated evidence.

PURPOSES

To provide a comprehensive review and updates of ESS including the nomenclature, technical evolution, bibliometric analysis of evidence, recent changes in the spine communities, the prevailing of biportal endoscopy, and the future of endoscopic spine surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on ESS for the mentioned topics from January 1989 to November 2022. Three major electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase. Covidence Systematic Review was used to organize the eligible records. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for relevance.

RESULTS

In total, 312 articles were finally included for review. We found various use of nomenclatures in the field of ESS publication. To address this issue, we proposed the use of distinct terms to describe the biportal and uniportal techniques, as well as their specific approaches. In the realm of technical advancement, ESS has rapidly evolved from addressing disc herniation and spinal stenosis to encompassing endoscopic fusion, along with technological innovations such as navigation, robotics, and augmented reality. According to bibliometric analysis, China, South Korea, and the USA have accounted for almost three-quarters of total publications. The studies of the biportal endoscopy are becoming increasingly popular in South Korea where the top ten most-cited articles have been published. The biportal endoscopy technique is relatively simple to adopt, as it relies on a more familiar approach, requires less expensive instruments, has a shorter learning curve, and is also well-suited for interbody fusion. The uniportal approach provided the smallest area of soft tissue dissection. While robotics and augmented reality in ESS are not widely embraced, the use of navigation in ESS is expected to become more streamlined, particularly with the emergence of recent electromagnetic-based navigation technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of ESS, as well as an updated summary of current trends in the field, including the biportal and uniportal approaches. Additionally, we summarize the nomenclature used in ESS, present a bibliometric analysis of the field, and discuss future directions for the advancement of the field.

Utility of Expandable Interbody Cages in Open Transforaminal Interbody Fusions: A Comparison With Static Cages

Background Expandable interbody cages, while popular in minimally invasive fusions due to their slim profile and increased ease of insertion, have not been widely explored in open surgery. The benefits of expandable cages may also extend to open fusions through their potential to achieve a greater restoration of lumbar lordosis while minimizing intraoperative complications. To highlight these benefits, we present a case series of adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients treated with an open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using expandable cages and compare outcomes to those of patients treated with static cages from the literature. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent a deformity correction procedure and TLIF with expandable interbody cages at Brigham and Women's Hospital between 2018 and 2022 was conducted. Patient demographics, complications, and pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters of spinopelvic alignment were collected. A literature search was completed to identify studies employing static cages. T-tests were performed to compare postoperative changes in radiographic parameters by cage type. Results Forty-five patients (mean age of 62.6 years) with an average of 2.1 cages placed met the inclusion criteria. Patients experienced five intraoperative complications and 23 neurologic deficits (from minor to major), while nine patients required a revision operation. Lumbar lordosis increased by 9.8° ± 14.5° (p < 0.0001), the sagittal vertical axis (SVA) decreased by 25.5 mm ± 56.7 mm (p = 0.0048), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch decreased by 13.3° ± 17.5° (p < 0.0001) with the use of expandable cages. Expandable cages yielded similar changes in lumbar lordosis to 15° and 8° cages but improved the lumbar lordosis generated from rectangular and 4° cages. When compared to static cages, expandable cages mildly reduced intraoperative complications. Conclusions Expandable interbody cages are an effective means of restoring spinopelvic alignment in ASD that have the potential to improve patient outcomes in open fusions compared to standard static cages. Especially when compared to rectangular and 4° static cages, expandable cages provide a clear benefit in the correction of lumbar lordosis. The impact of open spinal fusions with expandable cages on outcomes should continue to be explored in other cohorts.

Application and thinking of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases

Background

This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

The clinical data of 55 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated at our hospital from January 2018 to January 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Of the 55 patients, 35 who underwent MIS-TLIF were included in the MIS-TLIF group, and 20 who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were included in the PLIF group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative drainage, postoperative landing time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative interbody fusion rate, and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

The patients in both groups were followed-up for at least 1.5 years (range, 18–30 months; with an average of 27.5±2.6 months). There was no significant difference in the operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, VAS score for low back and leg pain, ODI score, interbody fusion rate, hospitalization expenses, and complication rate between the two groups (P>0.05). One patient had nail failure in the MIS-TLIF group, 1 patient in each group had nerve root irritation, and 1 patient in each group had superficial incision infection and local suture dehiscence. The postoperative drainage volume, postoperative landing time, and postoperative hospital stay of the MIS-TLIF group were less than those of the PLIF group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Compared to PLIF, the use of MIS-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases has a number of advantages, including more complete intraoperative hemostasis, less postoperative drainage, earlier landing, and faster discharge, and also significantly improves postoperative lumbar discomfort.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Preoperative pathology requiring fusion surgery has a great impact on postoperative outcomes. However, the previous clinical and meta-analysis studies did not control for the pathology. In this systematic review, the authors aimed to compare oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) as an interbody fusion technique in lumbar fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). We systematically searched for relevant articles in the available databases. Among the 3022 articles, three studies were identified and met the inclusion criteria. In terms of radiological outcome, the amount of disc height restoration was greater in the OLIF group than in the TLIF group, but there was no significant difference between the two surgical techniques (p = 0.18). In the clinical outcomes, the pain improvement was not significantly different between the two surgical techniques. In terms of surgical outcomes, OLIF resulted in a shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The present meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in clinical, radiological outcomes, and surgical time between TLIF and OLIF for DS, but the lengths of hospital stay and blood loss were better in OLIF than TLIF. Though encouraging, these findings were based on low-quality evidence from a small number of retrospective studies that are prone to bias.