Objective To summarize the basic research and the cl inical appl ication of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage. Methods Recent l iterature concerning biodegradable interbody fusion Cage at home and abroad was extensively reviewed, and current developments of the basic research and the cl inical appl ication of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage were investigated. Results Basic research showes that the stiffness of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage is lower than that of metall ic Cage, so it can enhance interbody fusion. As interbody fusion proceeded, biodegradable interbody fusion Cage degrades constantly, but the speed of degradation can not keep in parallel with that of fusion. In addition, the tissue response to degradation products is controversy. Cl inical appl ication showes that the biodegradable interbody fusion Cage can enhance interbody fusion and maintain disc space height. The short term results are good, however, the long term results need further observation. Conclusion Biodegradable interbody fusion Cage can effectively enhance interbody fusion.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) and Wiltse-approach TLIF (W-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsThe clinical data of 47 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria between July 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, in which 21 patients were treated with PE-TLIF (PE-TLIF group) and 26 patients were treated with W-TLIF (W-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease duration, level of spondylolisthesis vertebrae, spondylolisthesis degree, spondylolisthesis type, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and Taillard index (TI) of the operated vertebrae (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative bedridden time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The VAS score and JOA score were used to evaluate the improvement of pain and function. At last follow-up, DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae were measured by X-ray films, and lumbar CT was performed to evaluate the interbody fusion. Results Compared with W-TLIF group, the operation time in PE-TLIF group was significantly longer, but the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were significantly less, and the postoperative bedridden time was significantly shorter (P<0.05). There were 2 cases of transient lower limb radiating pain in PE-TLIF group and 1 case of superficial incision infection in W-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (9.5% vs. 3.8%) between the two groups (χ2=0.037, P=0.848). The patients in both groups were followed up 12-24 months, with an average of 17.3 months in PE-TLIF group and 17.7 months in W-TLIF group. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the JOA scores of the two groups significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). Compared with W-TLIF group, the VAS scores of low back pain in PE-TLIF group significantly lower at 3 days and 3 months after operation (P<0.05), and the JOA score of PE-TLIF group was significantly higher at 3 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in each score at any other time point between the two groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae of the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the differences of each parameter between the two groups (P>0.05). According to Suk’s standard, the fusion rates of PE-TLIF group and W-TLIF group were 90.5% (19/21) and 92.3% (24/26), respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.000, P=1.000). At last follow-up, there was no case of Cage sunk into the adjacent vertebral body, or dislodgement of Cage anteriorly or posteriorly in both groups. Conclusion PE-TLIF and W-TLIF are both effective in the treatment of grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although the operation time is prolonged, PE-TLIF has less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative bedridden time, and can get more obvious short-term improvement of low back pain and function.
ObjectiveTo investigate the early effctiveness of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with pedicle screw fixation via small incision Wiltse approach for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsBetween January 2016 and December 2016, 21 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis were treated with OLIF and pedicle screw fixation via small incision Wiltse approach. There were 9 males and 12 females, aged 57-73 years, with an average age of 64.5 years. The disease duration was 24-60 months, with an average of 34.6 months. All cases were spondylolisthesis at L4 (15 cases of degreeⅠ, 6 cases of degreeⅡ); 1 case had vertebral arch isthmus, and 20 cases had spinal stenosis. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system was used to evaluate the effectiveness before operation and at last follow-up. Before operation and at 2 days after operation, anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films and CT were taken to measure the sagittal diameter and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal, and calculate the intervertebral height and degree of spondylolisthesis. At 6 months after operation, the intervertebral fusion was evaluated by CT.ResultsThe operation time was 120-180 minutes, with an average of 155 minutes; the intraoperative blood loss was 100-340 mL, with an average of 225.5 mL. One patient had slight injury of lower endplate, 1 patient had numbness of thigh and weakness of hip flexion after operation, 1 patient had sympathetic nerve trunk injury. All the cases were followed up 12-18 months, with an average of 14.3 months. The symptoms of low back pain, leg pain, and numbness of lower limbs significantly relieved after operation, and there was no complication such as protrusion of fusion cage, screw breakage, and endplate collapse. At 2 days after operation, the intervertebral height, degree of spondylolisthesis, sagittal diameter of spinal canal, and cross-sectional area of spinal canal significantly improved compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). At 6 months after operation, CT showed that 1 patient had poor interbody fusion (grade Ⅲ), the other 20 patients had good interbody fusion (grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ), and the interbody fusion rate was 95.2%. At last follow-up, JOA score of lumbar spine significantly increased compared with that before operation (t=24.980, P=0.000).ConclusionOLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation via small incision Wiltse approach for the lumbar spondylolisthesis has minimally invasive features, such as less trauma, fewer complications, and higher intervertebral fusion rate. It is a safe and effective method.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of posterior unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Methods Between February 2008 and December 2011, 33 patients with degenerative lumbar instability were treated with posterior unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion, including 14 cases of lumbar disc protrusion with instability, 15 cases of lumbar spinal stenosis with instability, 3 recurrent cases of lumbar disc protrusion at 1 year after discectomy, and 1 case of extreme lateral lumbar disc protrusion. There were 20 males and 13 females with an average age of 47.2 years (range, 39-75 years). The average disease duration was 12.8 months (range, 6-25 months). Single-segment-fixation was performed in 28 cases (L4, 5 in 21 cases, L5, S1 in 6 cases, and L5, 6 in 1 case), and double-segment-fixation was performed in 5 cases (L3, 4 and L4, 5). The clinical results were evaluated by using Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for low back pain. Results Infection occurred in 1 case, and was cured after dressing change; primary healing was obtained in the other patients. Thirty-one patients were followed up 32.3 months on average (range, 15-53 months). Cage displacement occurred in 1 case who received bilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion; no screw breaking, Cage displacement, or pseudoarthrosis was observed in the others. X-ray films showed bone fusion in the other patients except 1 case of bone fusion failure. ODI and JOA score at last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with the ones before operation and at 2 weeks after operation (P lt; 0.05); the improvement rates were 74.0% ± 10.1% and 83.6% ± 9.4%, respectively. Conclusion Posterior unilateral pedicle screw fixation plus lumbar interbody fusion is an effective and reliable method for patients with degenerative lumbar instability because it has the advantages of simple operation and less trauma.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. Results All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation (P>0.05). ConclusionUBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness between anterior cervical Zero-profile interbody fusion device (Zero-P) and anterior cervical plate device (plate cage benezech, PCB) for cervical disease. MethodsBetween February 2011 and January 2013, 98 patients with cervical spondylosis who accorded with the inclusion criteria were treated with Zero-P in 49 cases (group A) and with PCB in 49 cases (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease type, disease duration, and disease segments between 2 groups (P>0.05). The Cobb angle, short-form 36 health survey scale (SF-36 scale), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, postoperative dysphagia cases, neck disability index (NDI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were compared between 2 groups. ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss of group A were significantly less than those of group B (t=4.089, P=0.000;t=3.587, P=0.001). The patients were followed up 3-36 months (mean, 18.5 months). No loosening or breaking of internal fixation and bone absorption or collapse occurred in the other patients except 2 patients who suffered from screw loosening at 3 months after operation. Within 6 months after operation, dysphagia occurred in 8 cases (16.33%) of group A and in 13 cases (26.53%) of group B, showing significant difference (χ2=10.616, P=0.001). At last follow-up, JOA score, VAS score, NDI, SF-36 scale, and Cobb angle were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P<0.05);the other indexes of group A were significantly better than those of group B (P<0.05) except SF-36 scale and Cobb angle (P>0.05). The excellent and good rate of JOA score was 81.63% in group A and 71.43% in group B, showing significant difference (χ2=4.346, P=0.037). ConclusionZero-P and PCB can get good results in treatment of cervical disease, but the Zero-P is better than PCB in reducing postoperative dysphagia because less wounds and strong stability.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. Methods A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Results Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences (P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation (P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months (P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). ConclusionFor the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.
Objective To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive tubular TLIF (MT-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods A clinical data of 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, who met the selection criteria between August 2019 and August 2020, was retrospectively analyzed, including 35 patients in the UBE- TLIF group and 40 patients in the MT-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease type and duration, and surgical segment between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin (Hb) before operation and at 1 day after operation, the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36 scale), intervertebral disc height (IDH), sagittal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL), and the intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with MT-TLIF group, UBE-TLIF group had significantly longer operation time but less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay (P<0.05). The Hb levels in both groups decreased at 1 day after operation, but there was no significant difference in the difference before and after operation between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up, and the follow-up time was (14.7±2.5) months in the UBE-TLIF group and (15.0±3.4) months in the MT-TLIF group, with no significant difference (t=0.406, P=0.686). In both groups, the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, SF-36 scale, and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between 1 month after operation and last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and SF-36 scale between the two groups before and after operation (P>0.05). At 1 month after operation, the ODI in the UBE-TLIF group was significantly better than that in the MT-TLIF group (P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, IDH, Cobb angle, and LL in both groups recovered when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and were maintained until last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the IDH, Cobb angle, and LL between the two groups at each time point (P>0.05). Thirty-three cases (89.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group and 35 cases (87.5%) in the MT-TLIF group achieved fusion, and the difference was not significant (χ2=0.015, P=0.901). In the UBE-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear and 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma occurred, with an incidence of 5.7%. In the MT-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear, 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma, and 1 case of superficial infection of the surgical incision occurred, with an incidence of 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (χ2=1.234, P=1.000). Conclusion Compared with MT-TLIF, UBE-TILF can achieve similar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and has the advantages of smaller incision, less bleeding, and shorter length of hospital stay.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) combined with Prospace and facet fusion using local autograft. Methods Clinical and radiographic data of 76 patients treated by this technique was reviewed from May 2002 to December 2004. Of them, there were 52 males and 24 females, with an average age of 53.2 years (2381 years), including 60 cases of degenerative disc disease, 9 cases of failed back surgery syndrome and 3 cases of spondylolysis. The disese courses were 1.2-8.7 years (mean 3.6 years). The levels of PLIF were:L 2,3 in 2 cases, L 3,4 in 7, L 4,5 in 54, L 5/S 1 in 10, L 4/S 1 in 1 and L 5,6 in 2. After decompression，Prospace was inserted into interbody space bilaterally，and located in disc space 4 mm beyond the rear edge ofthe vertebral body. Local laminectomy autograft was packed both laterally into and between 2 implants. Then the remanent local autograft was placed over facet bed. Pedicle screws were used after insertion of Prospace. Clinical results wereevaluated by the JOA score. Disc height ratio and lumbar lordosis angles were measured on lateral radiographs. Fusion status was determined by evidence of bridge trabeculae across facet joint and interbody space on CT scan without mobility in lateral dynamic X-rays, and no radiolucent gap between Prospace and endplate. Paired t test was used for statistical analysis. Results Mean blood loss and operative time was 384 ml and 178 minutes, respectively. The average JOA score at final follow-up (26.1±2.7) was significantly improved when compared with that of preoperation (14.5±4.0, P＜0.05), with a mean recovery rate of JOA score 81.1% (37.5%-100.0%). The fusion rate was 974%(74/76). Mean disc height ratio and the involved segmental lordosis angle were increased from preoperative 0.27± 0.07 and 5.8±2.2° to 0.33±0.06 and 11.3±2.0° respectively at the final followup, and the differences were significant (P＜0.05). There were no devicerelated complications. Conclusion This surgical technique combined with Prospace interbody device is a safe and effective surgical option for patients with onelevel lumbar disorders when PLIF is warranted.
ObjectiveTo explore the risk factors of coronal imbalance after posterior long-level fixation and fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis.MethodsRetrospectivly analyzed the clinical records of 41 patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis who had received posterior long-level fixation and fusion with selective transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) accompanied by Ponte osteotomy between August 2011 and July 2016. Patients were divided into imbalance group (group A, 11 cases) and balance group (group B, 30 cases) according to state of coronal imbalance measured at last follow-up. The radiographic parameters at preoperation and last follow-up were measured, and the variance of preoperative and last follow-up parameters were calculated. The radiographic parameters included coronal Cobb angle, coronal balance distance (CBD), apical vertebral translation (AVT), apical vertebral rotation (AVR), Cobb angle of lumbar sacral curve (LSC), and L5 tilt angle (L5TA). Univariate analysis was performed for the factors including gender, age, preoperative T value of bone mineral density, number of instrumented vertebra, upper and lower instrumented vertebra, segments of TLIF, decompression, and Ponte osteotomy, as well as the continuous variables of preoperative imaging parameters with significant difference were converted into two-category variables, obtained the influence factors of postoperative coronal imbalance. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to verify the risk factors from the preliminary screened influence factors and the variance of imaging parameters with significant difference between the two groups.ResultsThe follow-up time of groups A and B was (3.76±1.02) years and (3.56±1.03) years respectively, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t=0.547, P=0.587). The coronal Cobb angle, AVT, LSC Cobb angle, and L5TA in group A were significantly higher than those in group B before operation (P<0.05), and all the imaging parameters in group A were significantly higher than those in group B at last follow-up (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in parameters including the variance of coronal Cobb angle, AVT, and LSC Cobb angle before and after operation (P>0.05), and there were significant differences between the two groups in parameters including the variance of CBD, L5TA, and AVR (P<0.05). Univariate analysis showed that preoperative L5TA was the influencing factor of postoperative coronal imbalance (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative L5TA≥15° was an independent risk factor of postoperative coronal imbalance, and variance of pre- and post-operative AVR was a protective factor.ConclusionPreoperative L5TA≥15° is an independent risk factor for coronal imbalance in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis after posterior long-level fixation and fusion.