Intramuscular pressure of the multifidus muscle and low-back pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of mini-open and conventional approaches

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.

Management for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis and systematic review basing on randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Consensus on the various interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites until 01 November 2023, to screen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the treatment of DLS. The seven most common DLS interventions [nonsurgical (NS), decompression only (DO), decompression plus fusion without internal fixation (DF), decompression plus fusion with internal fixation (DFI), endoscopic decompression plus fusion (EDF), endoscopic decompression (ED), and circumferential fusion (360F)] were compared. The primary (pain and disability) and secondary (complications, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction) outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data involving 3273 patients in 16 RCTs comparing the efficacy of different interventions for DLS were reported. In terms of improving patient pain and dysfunction, there was a significant difference between surgical and NS. EDF showed the greatest improvement in short-term and long-term dysfunction (probability, 7.1 and 21.0%). Moreover, EDF had a higher complication rate (probability 70.8%), lower reoperation rate (probability, 20.2%), and caused greater blood loss (probability, 82.5%) than other surgical interventions. Endoscopic surgery had the shortest hospitalization time (EDF: probability, 42.6%; ED: probability, 3.9%). DF and DFI had the highest satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high complication rate of EDF, its advantages include improvement in pain, lower reoperation rate, and shorter hospitalization duration. Therefore, EDF may be a good option for patients with DLS as a less invasive surgical approach.

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.

Use of Wiltse approach in lumbar plexus schwannoma: A technical note

Background:

Lumbar plexus schwannomas are a rare occurrence in neurosurgery, with few reported cases and no standard surgical approach. This study describes a successful surgical resection with no complications using the Wiltse approach.

Methods:

Patient presented with an intra-psoas tumor suggesting schwannoma. We described the surgical technique involved step by step.

Results:

The patient recovered from the surgery with no complications. The anatomopathological examination confirmed the schwannoma diagnosis. The post operatory magnetic resonance imaging showed complete resection.

Conclusion:

This study shows that the use of Wiltse approach, mainly used for classical herniated disc extraforaminal, can be used successfully on Lumbar plexus schwannomas.

Effects and Safety of Lumbar Fusion Techniques in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common indication for spinal fusion. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is popular method to achieve arthrodesis, but previous syntheses usually used head-to-head comparison of 2 surgical methods, and no of them pooled analysis with high-quality. This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out to simultaneously compare fusion techniques in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. After critical appraisal, fusion rate, overall adverse events, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index, and pain were extracted for analysis. We conduced network meta-analysis using contrast-based method. Primary outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs (n = 992) met our eligibility criteria. The RCTs treated patients posterolateral fusion (PLF), posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF, extreme lateral LIF (XLIF), and circumferential fusion. The pooled estimate showed that circumferential fusion led to significantly higher fusion rate than PLF (RR = 2.15, 95%CI:1.41-3.28), PLIF (RR = 2.11, 95%CI:1.38-3.22), TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.39-3.27), MIS-TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.35-3.35), and XLIF (RR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.25-3.22). Moreover, circumferential fusion exhibited the best balance in probability between fusion rate and adverse event rate. No evidence showed inconsistency or small-study effect in the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, circumferential fusion might be worth to be recommended because it exhibits the best balance between fusion rate and overall adverse event. PLF is still an inferior procedure and requires shorter operative time.

Lumbar Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

STUDY DESIGN

This was a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacies of the 5 most commonly used procedures for spondylolisthesis in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

Lumbar fusion procedures are the backbone for the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. However, the current evidence has only considered head-to-head comparisons of different fusion procedures and failed to definitively favor one fusion procedure over another.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects model was used, and radiographic fusion and complications were assessed by risk ratio with a corresponding 95% credible interval; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed by mean difference and 95% credible interval. Furthermore, with respect to each endpoint, ranking probabilities for each fusion procedure were evaluated using the value of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

In all, 12 studies were identified. Significant differences in associated complications were found between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MTLIF) and each of the other 4 fusion procedures. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve results suggested that for the most effective radiographic fusion, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) had the maximum probability of being successful (76.6%), followed by MTLIF (70.4%) and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (OPLIF, 48.7%). In terms of ODI scores, OTLIF might be the best intervention (70.5%), followed by MTLIF (68.8%) and then OPLIF (44.0%). However, MTLIF is ranked the safest (99.8%) regarding associated complications, followed sequentially by OTLIF (57.1%) and posterolateral fusion (30.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

OTLIF for spondylolisthesis was found to be the more efficient procedure in terms of radiographic fusion and ODI scores. Importantly, MTLIF is most likely to have a lower associated complication rate compared with other fusion procedures.

Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters

Objective This retrospective study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF + PLF) for the treatment of patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Methodology A total of 77 adult patients ≥18 years with low-grade spondylolisthesis, Meyerding grades I and II, were assigned into two groups: 36 patients treated with PLF and 41 patients treated with TLIF + PLF. The PLF group is composed of the patients that were operated with pedicle screw and the TLIF + PLF group is composed of the ones that were operated with fixation and TILF by autografting. Clinical evaluation was performed using the spino-pelvic sagittal balance, Numeric Rating Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, blood loss, operation times, and postoperative hospital stay of the PLF vs TLIF groups. The incidences of postoperative low back pain and radicular pain in the two groups were also recorded. Radiography was performed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess spino-pelvic parameters.

Results Significant restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance was observed in the TLIF group after surgery, and all spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters showed significant improvement in the TLIF group after surgery, while in the PLF group, all spino-pelvic sagittal parameters had improved except the segmental angle lordosis (p = 0.316), which showed no significant difference after surgery in the PLF group. Postoperative pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt significantly improved in the TLIF group in comparison to PLF groups. Hence, TLIF can achieve better postoperative spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters than PLF. There was no difference in the complication rates for each group. Both groups achieved significant improvement in postoperative clinical outcomes, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative low back pain or radicular pain between the two groups.

Conclusion Both surgical procedures PLF and TLIF were effective. PLF and TLIF can result in improved clinical and radiological outcomes for patients treated for low-grade spondylolisthesis. TLIF can achieve better restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters than PLF alone.

From clinic to hypothesis, an innovative operation for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in a minimal invasive way

Concerning the damage to back muscles and posterior ligament complex (PLC) by posterior open approach for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), the oblique lateral intervertebral fusion (OLIF) is pretty popular nowadays. However, oblique lateral approach has obvious drawbacks, which are limited vision and operative scope for achieving spinal canal decompression. Herein, we present a hypothesis that lumbar canal decompression can be well achieved by OLIF combined with spinal endoscope operative system. Nerval decompression and spinal reconstruction are achieved in a minimal invasive way, which may play an instructive role for the treatment of serious LSS.

Analysis of Spinopelvic Sagittal Balance and Persistent Low Back Pain (PLBP) for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (DS) following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF)

Objective

To investigate the change of spinopelvic sagittal balance and clinical outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), especially the relationship between sagittal spinopelvic parameters and persistent low back pain (PLBP).

Methods

107 patients who were diagnosed with DS and underwent PLIF in our department were enrolled retrospectively in the present study. Sagittal spinopelvic parameters including lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), height of the disc (HOD), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic tilt (PT) were recorded pre- and postoperatively. Sagittal balance and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without PLBP. Pearson correlation was used to analyze the change of sagittal balance parameters and clinical functions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the risk factors of PLBP.

Results

It showed significant improvements of SL, HOD, and PT postoperatively. Both the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) had significant improvement postoperatively. Change of PT and SL also differed observably between patients with and without PLBP. SL and PT were correlated with NRS and ODI, and insufficient restoration of PT was an independent factor for PLBP.

Conclusion

The sagittal balance parameters and clinical outcomes can be improved markedly via PLIF for treating DS. Restoration of SL and PT was correlated with satisfactory outcomes, and adequate improvement of PT may have positive impact on reducing PLBP.

Postoperative Low Back Pain after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Using Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws

Study Design

Retrospective analysis of a case series of prospectively collected data.

Purpose

To compare clinical and radiological outcomes between two posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques: cortical bone trajectory (CBT) and traditional pedicle screw (PS).

Overview of Literature

Biomechanical studies have revealed the benefits of the CBT technique. However, clinical evidence obtained from the direct comparison of outcomes between CBT and PS is limited.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 104 patients who had undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion using CBT or PS. Clinical symptoms were evaluated and compared between CBT and PS using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) before and 1 year after surgery. Spinal fusion status was assessed by multiplanar reconstruction computed tomography at 1 year after surgery.

Results

The CBT and PS techniques were performed on 36 and 68 patients, respectively. Both CBT- and PS-treated patients exhibited improvement in each subdomain of the JOABPEQ and in the VAS. With regard to postoperative improvement of low back pain, the treatment effect, as assessed by the JOABPEQ, was greater for PS than for CBT. The spinal fusion rate was slightly lower for CBT than for PS, although the difference between them was not significant. The effect of treatment on postoperative low back pain was smaller for CBT than for PS, regardless of whether rigid spinal fusion was achieved.

Conclusions

Clinical symptoms and spinal fusion efficiency were not significantly different between CBT and PS except for postoperative improvement in low back pain. The treatment effect on postoperative low back pain was smaller for CBT than for PS.

Predictors of Prolonged Length of Stay After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Multicenter Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively database.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors associated with prolonged length of stay (LOS) in posterior /transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF).

METHODS

The subjects were patients who underwent PLIF/TLIF at 10 facilities from 2012 to 2014. A total of 1168 such patients with a mean age of 65.9 ± 12.5 years (range 18-87 years) were identified in the database. Operations were PLIF (n = 675), TLIF (n = 443), minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-PLIF (n = 22), and MIS-TLIF (n = 32). Age, gender, body mass index, ambulatory status, comorbidities, perioperative American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operative factors, and complications were examined. LOS was defined as the number of calendar days from the operation to hospital discharge. LOS was categorized as normal (<75th percentile) or prolonged (≥75th percentile).

RESULTS

The average LOS was 20.8 ± 9.8 days (range 7-77 days). There was a significant correlation between LOS and age (P < .05). Reoperation during hospitalization was performed in 20 cases for surgical site infection (n = 12), epidural hematoma (n = 5), and screw misplacement (n = 3). In multivariate analysis, prolonged LOS was associated with preoperative variables of age ≥70 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.38-2.54), and ASA class ≥III (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.04-2.25); surgical variables of open procedures (OR 5.84, 95% CI 1.74-19.63), fused levels ≥3 (OR 5.17, 95% CI 3.17-8.43), operative time ≥300 minutes (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.15-3.07), and estimated blood loss ≥500 mL (OR 1.71, 95% 1.07-2.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The factors identified in this study should help with obtaining informed consent, surgical planning and complication prevention to reduce health care costs associated with prolonged LOS.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ISCHIOTIBIAL AND PARAVERTEBRAL MUSCLES AND LOW BACK PAIN

ABSTRACT Low back pain or lumbago is a painful condition that affects an increasing number of people around the world and has numerous causal factors. Among these factors, the most distinctive are muscle imbalances, weakness of paravertebral muscles and shortening of ischiotibial muscles. The role of these muscle groups is still controversial and not fully explained in the literature. Thus, a survey was conducted in the SciELO, LILACS, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases in the last decade (2003-2013), using as keywords: hamstrings, low back pain, lumbago, and paravertebral. The works found confirm that, according to the methodology, weakness in paravertebral muscles is of great importance to the development of low back pain as well as the shortening of the ischiotibial muscles, which are directly related to this factor.

Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-a prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

An overload of the paravertebral muscles after surgical intervention is suggested to be the major cause of postoperative pain. In cross-sectional area analyses, increased atrophy of the multifidus muscle (MF) after conventional open versus minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has been described. The three-dimensional characteristics of the paravertebral muscles and separate evaluation of the longissimus muscle (LS) have not been addressed in analyses thus far.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the MF and LS volume atrophy and fatty degeneration between single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (miTLIF) and conventional midline approach-based PLIF (coPLIF) of L4/L5 or L5/S1 at the index and superior adjacent segments.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, non-blinded study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty patients with single-level segment degeneration (Pfirrmann ≥III and Modic ≥3) of L4/L5 or L5/S1 not requiring decompression were randomly assigned to two groups.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Paraspinal lumbar residual muscle tissue volume, change in the relative fat content of MF and LS at the index and superior adjacent segments, and clinical parameters, including a visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI) were the outcome measures in this study.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were treated with miTLIF, and the remaining patients were treated with coPLIF (both with transpedicular fixation). Clinical scoring was performed preoperatively and at 1 week and 12 months postoperatively, and computed tomography was performed at the latter two follow-ups.

RESULTS

The LS damage at the index segment was similar in both groups (3% greater fat content increase in the coPLIF vs. the miTLIF group, p=.032), whereas MF atrophy and degeneration were increased (p<.001) in the coPLIF group. At the adjacent segment, muscle atrophy and increased fatty infiltration (p<.05) were minimal in both muscles but were similar in both groups. Visual analogue scale and ODI scores improved (p<.001), without differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The muscle damage after miTLIF was inferior to that after coPLIF; spatially, however, the muscle sparing was predominantly attributed to the MF and, surprisingly, not to the LS.

Clinical characteristics and neurologic recovery of patients with cervical spinal tuberculosis: should conservative treatment be preferred? A retrospective follow-up study of 115 cases

OBJECTIVE

To present the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of neurologic recovery in patients with cervical spinal tuberculosis (CST).

METHODS

General description and multivariate analysis were used to detect possible predictors of the outcome of patients with neurologic deficit. Follow-up data were used to generate a Kaplan-Meier curve of neurologic recovery.

RESULTS

Protective factors in neurologic recovery included less involved vertebrae, surgery, and higher Japanese Orthopaedic Association score before treatment; not shorter symptom duration was not a protective factor. Normal neurologic function was present in 30% of patients 6 months after treatment, in 56% of patients 12 months after treatment, and in 93% of patients 28 months after treatment. The cumulative complete neurologic recovery rates at 6 months, 12 months, and 28 months were 44%, 68%, and 91.7% in the surgery group and 16.7%, 38.8%, and 94.4% in the nonsurgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score before treatment are important predictors of neurologic recovery in patients with CST. A neurologic recovery curve could predict neurologic recovery in patients with CST and indicate in patients with neurologic deficit how long it will take to achieve complete neurologic recovery. The effect of surgery is quick, and the effect of conservative treatment is slower, but no difference in neurologic recovery was found in the long-term. Conservative treatment should be tried in every patient with CST with no obvious indication for surgery. In contrast to patients with tuberculosis without cervical spine involvement but with more complications, comprehensive conservative therapy should be preferred for patients with neurologic deficit to avoid unnecessary surgery and overtreatment and to conserve medical resources. Indications for surgical intervention for CST should be carefully selected.

A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis

Background

We compared the perioperative results and complications associated with PLIF and TLIF, and collected evidence for choosing the better fusion method.

Methods

A literature survey of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases identified 7 comparative observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. Checklists by Cowley were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. A database including patient demographic information, perioperative results, and complications was established. The summary odds ratio and weighed mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated with a random-effects model.

Results

We found that PLIF had a higher complication rate (P <0.00001), and TLIF reduced the rate of durotomy (P = 0.01). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to clinical satisfaction (P = 0.54), blood loss (P = 0.14), vertebral root injury (P = 0.08), graft malposition (P = 0.06), infection (P = 0.36), or rate of radiographic fusion (P = 0.27). The evidence indicated that PLIF required longer operative time (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

The evidence indicated that TLIF could reduce the complication rate and durotomy. Neither TLIP nor PLIF was found superior in terms of clinical satisfaction or radiographic fusion rate. PLIF might result in longer time in surgery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-367) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.