Objective To investigate the effect of the sagittal alignment of the spine and pelvis after surgical posterior intervertebral fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation for low-grade isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and to assess the effectiveness. Methods Between October 2009 and October 2011, 30 patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis underwent surgical posterior intervertebral fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation, and the clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. There were 14 males and 16 females with an average age of 56.7 years (range, 48-67 years). The pre- and post-operative radiographic parameters, such as percentage of slipping (PS), intervertebral space height, angle of slip (AS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar junction angle (TLJ), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), spino-sacral angle (SSA), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI) were measured. The functional evaluation was made using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Pearson correlation were used to investigate the association between all parameters and ODI score. Results PS, intervertebral space height, AS, and ODI were improved significantly compared with properative ones (P lt; 0.05). Significant differences were found in the other parameters between pre- and post-operation (P lt; 0.05) except TLJ and TK. The alteration of SVA showed significant correlation with the changes of PS, PI, PT, LL, SS, AS, SSA, and ODI. The alteration of SSA showed significant correlation with the changes of PS, PI, LL, SS, AS, PT, and ODI. Conclusion Surgical posterior intervertebral fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis can effectively improve and maintain the spinal sagittal parameters. SVA and SSA are adequate to evaluate pre-and post-operative balance. The good clinical outcome is closely related with the improved of SVA and SSA.
Objective To analyze the effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Methods Between October 2003 and December 2007, 36 patients with FBSS were treated with TLIF. There were 19 males and 17 females with an average age of 52.6 years (range, 46-68 years) and an average disease duration of 1.6 years (range, 3 months-15 years). Of 36 patients, reoperation was performed in 25, 10 received 3 operations,and 1 had 5 operations. A total of 50 segments were involved in fusion, including L4, 5 in 12 cases, L5, S1 in 10 cases, L3, 4 and L4, 5 double segments in 8 cases, and L4, 5 and L5, S1 double segments in 6 cases. According to X-ray films, CT, and MRI examination, 12 patients were diagnosed as having lumbar instabil ity secondary to total laminectomy, 18 as having recurrence of lumbar disc protrusion, and 6 as having recurrence of lumbar spondylol isthesis. Results Dural rupture occurred in 1 case and was repaired by suturing without cerebrospinal fluid leakage was observed; 1 had deep incision infection of Staphylococcus; and 1 had transient single irritation sign because of hematoma formation and was cured after symptomatic treatment. The other incisions healed by first intention. No patients had permanent nerve injury or deterioration. Thirty-three cases were followed up 18-72 months (mean, 35.2 months). At 12 months, all the operated segments reached interbody fusion, and no breakage of screw or Cage dislocation occurred. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores showed significant difference (t=2.45, P=0.01) between before operation (14.2 ± 4.1) and 18 months after operation (23.9 ± 2.6). The rate of cl inical improvement was 90.9% (23 cases of excellent, 7 cases of good, 3 cases of acceptable). Conclusion The TLIF simpl ifies the manipulation of lumbar revision surgery and decreases the operation risk and the operative compl ications for the treatment of FBSS.
Objective To review the progress in the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. Methods The l iterature about the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of AxiaLIF for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases in recent years was reviewed. Results Almost 9 000 procedures performed globally in recent years, AxiaLIF has shown its safety and effectiveness because of high fusion rates, short hospital ization days, and less iatrogenic compl ications in comparison with standard fusion procedures. ConclusionPostoperative long-term outcomes, biomechanics stabil ity, and extended appl ication of AxiaLIF still need a further study,though it suggests an original minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases.
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.
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 review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.
The human spine injury and various lumbar spine diseases caused by vibration have attracted extensive attention at home and abroad. To explore the biomechanical characteristics of different approaches for lumbar interbody fusion surgery combined with an interspinous internal fixator, device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM), finite element models of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are created by simulating clinical operation based on a three-dimensional finite element model of normal human whole lumbar spine. The fusion level is at L4–L5, and the DIAM is implanted between spinous process of L4 and L5. Transient dynamic analysis is conducted on the ALIF, TLIF and LLIF models, respectively, to compute and compare their stress responses to an axial cyclic load. The results show that compared with those in ALIF and TILF models, contact forces between endplate and cage are higher in LLIF model, where the von-Mises stress in endplate and DIAM is lower. This implies that the LLIF have a better biomechanical performance under vibration. After bony fusion between vertebrae, the endplate and DIAM stresses for all the three surgical models are decreased. It is expected that this study can provide references for selection of surgical approaches in the fusion surgery and vibration protection for the postsurgical lumbar spine.
Objective To explore the clinical application value of the spinal robot-assisted surgical system in mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the accuracy of its implantation. Methods The clinical data of 56 patients with Meyerding grade Ⅰ or Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between January 2017 and December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Among them, 28 cases were preoperatively planned with robotic arm and percutaneous pedicle screw placement according to preoperative planning (group A); the other 28 cases underwent fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, slippage type, Meyerding grade, and surgical segmental distribution between the two groups (P>0.05). The screw insertion angle was measured by CT, the accuracy of screw implantation was evaluated by Neo’s criteria, and the invasion of superior articular process was evaluated by Babu’s method. Results One hundred and twelve screws were implanted in the two groups respectively, 5 screws (4.5%) in group A and 26 screws (23.2%) in group B penetrated the lateral wall of pedicle, and the difference was significant (χ2=9.157, P=0.002); the accuracy of nail implantation was assessed according to Neo’s criteria, the results were 107 screws of degree 0, 3 of degree 1, 2 of degree 2 in group A, and 86 screws of degree 0, 16 of degree 1, 6 of degree 2, 4 of degree 3 in group B, showing significant difference between the two groups (Z=4.915, P=0.031). In group B, 20 (17.9%) screws penetrated the superior articular process, while in group A, 80 screws were removed from the decompression side, and only 3 (3.8%) screws penetrated the superior articular process. According to Babu’s method, the degree of screw penetration into the facet joint was assessed. The results were 77 screws of grade 0, 2 of grade 1, 1 of grade 2 in group A, and 92 screws of grade 0, 13 of grade 1, 4 of grade 2, 3 of grade 3 in group B, showing significant difference between the two groups (Z=7.814, P=0.029). The screw insertion angles of groups A and B were (23.5±6.6)° and (18.1±7.5)° respectively, showing significant difference (t=3.100, P=0.003). Conclusion Compared to fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement has the advantages such as greater accuracy, lower incidence of screw penetration of the pedicle wall and invasion of the facet joints, and has a better screw insertion angle. Combined with MIS-TLIF, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement is an effective minimally invasive treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Objective To compare the short-term effectiveness between dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed, from 14 patients undergoing Dynesys and 18 patients undergoing PLIF to treat lumbar degenerative disease between February 2009 and March 2011. No significant difference in gender, age, duration of disease, and lesion segments was found between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and radiographic results were compared between 2 groups at preoperation and last follow-up. Results Thirty-one cases were followed up 12-21 months (mean, 17 months). No internal fixation loosening, broken screws, and broken rods was found during follow-up. The mean interbody fusion time was 15 months (range, 13-19 months) in PLIF group. The VAS score and ODI were significantly improved in 2 groups at last follow-up when compared with the preoperative ones (P lt; 0.05); but there was no signficant difference between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Imaging assessment: the range of motion (ROM) of operated segment in PLIF group was (0.1 ± 0.4)° at last follow-up, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative ROM (7.8 ± 0.6)° (t=28.500, P=0.004); the ROM in Dynesys group (5.0 ± 1.5)° decreased, but showing no significant difference when compared with preoperative ROM (7.5 ± 0.8)° (t=0.480, P=0.113); and significant difference was found between 2 groups (t=5.260, P=0.008) at last follow-up. The ROM of adjacent segment in Dynesys group at last follow-up (7.2 ± 0.7)° decreased when compared with preoperative ROM (7.3 ± 1.8)°, but showing no significant difference (t=0.510, P=0.108); however, ROM of adjacent segment in PLIF group (8.7 ± 0.4)° increased significantly when compared with preoperative ROM (7.0 ± 1.6)°, showing signifcant difference (t=3.440, P=0.042); and there was significant difference between 2 groups (t= — 2.100, P=0.047) at last follow-up. Conclusion Dynesys and PLIF have equivalent short-term effectivness in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. However, the Dynesys could retain ROM of operated segment without increased ROM of the adjacent segment, which will promote the disc recovery of operated segment and prevent degeneration of adjacent segment.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. MethodsRetrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 26 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation, who were in line with the selection criteria and underwent MIS-TLIF in 14 patients (MIS-TLIF group) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in 12 patients (OTLIF group) between December 2007 and May 2012. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, level of disc herniation, side of disc herniation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and complications were compared between 2 groups. The clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. The fusion rate was determined by using CT three-dimensional reconstruction and dynamic lumbar radiography at last follow-up. ResultsPrimary healing of incisions was obtained in both groups. No difference was found in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.858, P=0.399), but MIS-TLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume than OTLIF group (P<0.05). The average follow-up duration was 34.1 months with a range of 12-50 months. No complication of dural tear, infection, spinal nerve trauma, and implant failure occurred. The VAS scores of lower back pain and radicular pain and ODI scores at preoperation showed no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of lower back pain and ODI score at 1 day after operation in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the OTLIF group (P<0.05), but no difference was found in VAS scores of radicular pain between 2 groups (P>0.05). Difference in all scores was not significant at last follow-up between 2 groups (P>0.05). The fusion rate was 92.8% (13/14) in MIS-TLIF group, and was 100% (12/12) in OTLIF group at last follow-up. ConclusionMIS-TLIF is a safe and effective procedure for upper lumbar disc herniation as an alternative to other techniques.