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.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) assisted with microscope in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween January 2011 and June 2012, 52 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis underwent MI-TLIF assisted with microscope. There were 29 males and 23 females with an average age of 46 years (range, 32-67 years). The median disease duration was 3.2 years (range, 3 months to 6 years). There were 38 cases of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis and 14 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis; 12 cases had stenosis secondary to lumbar spondylolisthesis. The affected segments were L4, 5 (29 cases) and L5, S1 (23 cases). According to the Meyerding evaluating system, 24 cases were classified as degree I and 28 cases as degree Ⅱ. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI)were used for clinical assessment, and the clinical effects were also analyzed by Macnab criterion at last follow-up. The radiographic data were used to evaluate reduction of spondylolisthesis, including slipping degree, slipping angle, and intervertebral space height. The fusion rate was assessed by Suk criterion. ResultsThe operations were performed successfully in all patients. No dural tear or cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred during operation. The average operation time was 105 minutes; the average intraoperative blood loss was 225 mL; the average postoperative drainage volume was 75 mL; and the average hospitalization days were 5.5 days. Superficial infection of incision occurred in 1 case and was cured after change dressing, and primary healing of incision was obtained in the others. All patients were followed up 12-26 months (mean, 18 months). No loosening, breakage, and displacement of pedicle screw and no Cage dislocation occurred by X-ray films after operation. The lumbar spondylolisthesis all got good correction. The three-dimensional CT showed continuous bone trabecula between centrums. The VAS score, ODI, and the slipping degree, slipping angle, and intervertebral space height were significantly improved at last follow-up when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). According to Macnab criterion at last follow-up, the results were excellent in 20 cases, good in 29 cases, and fair in 3 cases; the excellent and good rate was 94.2%. According to Suk criterion for fusion, 49 cases obtained complete fusion and 3 cases got possible fusion. ConclusionAs long as indications are seized, MI-TLIF assisted with microscope is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding dergee I or Ⅱ), and it has the advantage of less injury, less blood loss, less complications, and definite short-term effectiveness.
ObjectiveTo investigate the correlation between CT value and Cage subsidence in patients with lumbar degenerative disease treated with stand-alone oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). MethodsThe clinical data of 35 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated with stand-alone OLIF between February 2016 and October 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 15 males and 20 females; the age ranged from 29 to 81 years, with an average of 58.4 years. There were 39 operative segments, including 32 cases of single-segment, 2 cases of double-segment, and 1 case of three-segment. Preoperative lumbar CT was used to measure the CT values of the axial position of L1 vertebral body, the axial and sagittal positions of L1-4 vertebral body, surgical segment, and the axial position of upper and lower vertebral bodies as the bone mineral density index, and the lowest T value was recorded by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were recorded before operation and at last follow-up. At last follow-up, the lumbar interbody fusion was evaluated by X-ray films of the lumbar spine and dynamic position; the lumbar lateral X-ray film was used to measure the subsidence of the Cage, and the patients were divided into subsidence group and nonsubsidence group. The univariate analysis on age, gender, body mass index, lowest T value, CT value of vertebral body, disease type, and surgical segment was performed to initially screen the influencing factors of Cage subsidence; further the logistic regression for multi-factor analysis was used to screen fusion independent risk factors for Cage subsidence. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were used to analyze the CT value and the lowest T value to predict the Cage subsidence. Spearman correlation analysis was used to determine the correlation between Cage subsidence and clinical results. Results All the 35 patients were followed up 27-58 months, with an average of 38.7 months. At last follow-up, the VAS and ODI scores were significantly decreased when compared with preoperative scores (t=32.850, P=0.000; t=31.731, P=0.000). No recurrent lower extremity radiculopathy occurred and no patient required revision surgery. Twenty-seven cases (77.1%) had no Cage subsidence (nonsubsidence group); 8 cases (22.9%) had at least radiographic evidence of Cage subsidence, the average distance of Cage subsidence was 2.2 mm (range, 1.1-4.2 mm) (subsidence group). At last follow-up, there was 1 case of fusion failure both in the subsidence group and the nonsubsidence group, there was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate (96.3% vs. 87.5%) between two groups (P=0.410). Univariate analysis showed that the CT value of vertebral body (L1 axial position, L1-4 axial and sagittal positions, surgical segment, and upper and lower vertebral bodies axial positions) and the lowest T value were the influencing factors of Cage subsidence (P<0.05). According to ROC curve analysis, compared with AUC of the lowest T value [0.738, 95%CI (0.540, 0.936)], the AUC of the L1-4 axis CT value was 0.850 [95%CI (0.715, 0.984)], which could more effectively predict Cage subsidence. Multivariate analysis showed that the CT value of L1-4 axis was an independent risk factor for Cage subsidence (P<0.05). Conclusion The CT value measurement of the vertebral body based on lumbar spine CT before stand-alone OLIF can predict the Cage subsidence. Patients with low CT values of the lumbar spine have a higher risk of Cage subsidence. However, the Cage subsidence do not lead to adverse clinical results.
ObjectiveTo review and evaluate the technical advantages and disadvantages and research progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. MethodsThe domestic and foreign related research literature on percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was extensively consulted. The advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness were summarized. And the development trend of this technology was prospected. ResultsCompared with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has less intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, better improvement of low back pain in the early stage after operation, and similar long-term effectiveness, fusion rate, and incidence of complication, but a longer learning curve. The operation time of biportal and large-channel uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion is close to that of MIS-TLIF, but the operation time of small-channel uniportal endoscopic fusion is longer than that of MIS-TLIF. ConclusionPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has the advantages of less trauma and good effectiveness, but its learning curve is long, and indications should be strictly selected for this operation. In the future, with the continuous development and complementation of various endoscopic fusion technologies, this technology will gain better application prospects.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of surgical treatment for single-level degenerative lumbar instabil ity (DLI) by comparing traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with minimally invasive TLIF. Methods Between March 2007 and May 2009，87 patients with single-level DLI were treated by traditional open TLIF (group A, n=45) and by minimally invasive TLIF (group B, n=42), respectively. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, segment level, combined diseases of lumbar spine, or the proportion of uni- and bilateral symptom between 2groups (P gt; 0.05). The indexes of surgical trauma，systemic inflammatory response, cl inical outcomes, and aravertebral muscle injury were compared between 2 groups. Results Operation was performed successfully in all patients. The patients were followed up 2.9 years on average in group A and 2.8 years on average in group B. The incision, blood loss, and postoperative drainage in group B were significantly less than those in group A (P lt; 0.05), but the operation time in group B was significantly longer than that in group A (P lt; 0.05). There were significant differences (P lt; 0.05) in C-reactive protein, leucocyte count, and creatine kinase MM between 2 groups at 24 hours postoperatively as well as in C-reactive protein at 6 days postoperatively; group B was superior to group A. At last follow-up, the Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) and visual analogue score (VAS) were significantly improved when compared with the preoperative scores in 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). There were significant differences in ODI and back pain VAS score (P lt; 0.05), but no significant difference in leg pain VAS score (P gt; 0.05) between 2 groups. At last follow-up, no low back pain occurred in 8 and 18 cases, mild in 25 and 18 cases, moderate in 9 and 6 cases, and severe in 3 and 0 cases in groups A and B, respectively, showing that low back pain was significantly l ighter in group B than in group A (Z= —2.574, P=0.010). At last follow-up, the atrophy ratio of multifidus muscle was 37% ± 13% in group A and was 15% ± 7% in group B, showing significant difference (t=12.674, P=0.000). The multifidus muscle atrophy was rated as grade I in 18 and 44 sides, as grade II in 42 and 32 sides, and as grade III in 30 and 8 sides in groups A and B, respectively, showing significant difference (Z= — 4.947, P=0.000). Conclusion Both traditional open TLIF and minimally invasive TLIF are the effective treatments for single-level DLI. Minimally invasive TLIF has less surgical trauma, sl ighter postoperative systemic inflammatory response, less paravertebral muscle injury, and lower incidence of postoperative back pain, but it has longer operation time.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). MethodsA clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation (P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation (P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group (P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation (P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group (P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). ConclusionUnilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of cortical bone trajectory screw (CBTS) and conventional pedicle screw for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single segment lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between May 2013 and May 2016, a total of 97 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative disease were treated with PLIF. Fifty-one patients were fixed with CBTS in PLIF (trajectory screw group) and 46 with pedicle screw (pedicle screw group). There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, preoperative diagnosis, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, bed rest time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine kinase (CK) concentration, total amount of diclofenac sodium, perioperative complications, ODI, VAS score, and interbody fusion rate were recorded and compared between 2 groups. Results All patients were followed up 12 months. The patients in trajectory screw group had a significantly less operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and serum CK concentration when compared with the patients in pedicle screw group (P<0.05). Thirty-five patients (68.6%) in trajectory screw group and 46 patients (100%) in pedicle screw group were given diclofenac sodium within 48 hours after operation, showing significant difference between 2 groups (χ2=89.334, P=0.000). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between trajectory screw group and pedicle screw group (3.9% vs. 8.7%, P=0.418). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, ODI, and interbody fusion rate at 12 months after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). Conclusion For the single segment degenerative lumbar disease, the use of CBTS or conventional pedicle screw for PLIF can obtain satisfactory clinical function and interbody fusion rate. But the former has the advantages of less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage, less perioperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and bed rest time.
ObjectiveTo observe the difference between crenel lateral interbody fusion (CLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) combined with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsThe clinical data of DLS combined with LSS patients meeting the selection criteria admitted between May 2018 and May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into CLIF group (33 cases) and TLIF group (32 cases). There were no significant differences (P>0.05) between the two groups in gender, age, disease duration, lesion segments, lumbar bone mineral density, degree of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, lumbar lordosis (LL), and segmental lordosis (SL). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Lumbar CT scan was performed at last follow-up to compare the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups. Intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL were measured before operation, at 2 weeks, 3 months after operation, and at last follow-up. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the pain and improvement of the quality of life of the patients.ResultsThere were no neurological and vascular complications in the two groups. The operation time and intraoperative blood loss in CLIF group were significantly less than those in TLIF group (P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up for a median time of 18 months. All the incisions healed by first intention except 1 incision in TLIF group because of poor blood glucose control. No complications such as bedsore, falling pneumonia, and deep venous thrombosis were found in both groups. At last follow-up, the intervertebral fusion rates in CLIF and TLIF group were 90.91% (30/33) and 93.75% (30/32), respectively, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.185, P=0.667). The VAS score, ODI, intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL were significantly improved in both groups at each time point after operation (P<0.05). Except that VAS score in CLIF group was significantly lower than that in TLIF group at 2 weeks after operation (Z=−4.303, P=0.000), there were no significant differences in VAS score and ODI between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height, LL, and SL in CLIF group were significantly higher than those in TLIF group at each time point after operation, and the differences were significant (P<0.05).ConclusionCLIF in the treatment of DLS combined with LSS can achieve the similar effectiveness with traditional TLIF, and has such advantages as minimal invasion and faster recovery.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion assisted by one-hole split endoscope (OSE) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of L4, 5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods The clinical data of 58 patients with DLS who met the selection criteria admitted between February 2020 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, of which 26 were treated with OSE-assisted posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion (OSE group) and 32 were treated with PLIF (PLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index, Meyerding grade, lower limb symptom side, decompression side, stenosis type, and preoperative low back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, leg pain VAS score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the height of the anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications were compared between the two groups. The low back pain and leg pain VAS scores and ODI before operation, at 1 month, 6 months after operation, and last follow-up, the height of anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space before operation, at 6 months after operation, and last follow-up, the modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up after operation were used to evaluate the effectiveness; and the Bridwell method at last follow-up was used to evaluate the interbody fusion. Results Both groups successfully completed the operation. Compared with the PLIF group, the OSE group showed a decrease in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay, but an increase in operation time, with significant differences (P<0.05). In the OSE group, no complication such as nerve root injury and thecal sac tear occurred; in the PLIF group, there were 1 case of thecal sac tear and 1 case of epidural hematoma, which were cured after conservative management. Both groups of patients were followed up 13-20 months with an average of 15.5 months. There was no complication such as loosening, sinking, or displacement of the fusion cage. The low back pain and leg pain VAS scores, ODI, and the height of anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space at each time point after operation in both groups were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). Except for the VAS score of lower back pain in the OSE group being significantly better than that in the PLIF group at 1 month after operation (P<0.05), there was no significant difference in all indicators between the two groups at all other time points (P>0.05). At last follow-up, both groups achieved bone fusion, and there was no significant difference in Bridwell interbody fusion and modified MacNab standard evaluation between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion OSE-assisted posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for L4, 5 DLS, although the operation time is relatively long, but the postoperative hospitalization stay is short, the complications are few, the operation is safe and effective, and the early effectiveness is satisfactory.