ObjectiveTo explore the fusion effect of allograft Cages on transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsThe clinical data of 30 patients (38 vertebral segments) who underwent TLIF with allograft interbody fusion Cages between January 2015 and January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. There were 25 males and 5 females with an average age of 56.9 years (range, 44-72 years). The lesions included 20 cases of lumbar disc herniation, 7 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and 3 cases of lumbar spinal stenosis. The operation section included 4 cases of L3, 4, 13 cases of L4, 5, 5 cases of L5, S1, 6 cases of L4, 5-L5, S1, and 2 cases of L3, 4-L4, 5. The disease duration was 6-36 months (mean, 12 months). The clinical effectiveness was evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score at preoperation, 3 months and 6 months after operation, and last follow-up. The fusion rate was evaluated by anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films and CT three-dimensional reconstruction at 3 and 6 months after operation. The intervertebral space height was measured on anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films at preoperation, 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation.ResultsThe operation time was 2.1-4.3 hours (mean, 3.1 hours), and the intraoperative blood loss was 150-820 mL (mean, 407.5 mL). The follow-up time was 8-25 months (mean, 16.4 months). One Cage split at 6 months after operation without Cage movement and neurologic symptoms; none of the other patients had Cage prolapse, displacement, and fragmentation. No local or systemic allergy or infection signs was found in all patients. No nerve compression or symptoms was observed during the follow-up. The postoperative VAS score, ODI score, and JOA score improved significantly when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05); and the scores at 6 months and at last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with those at 3 months after operation (P<0.05); but no significant difference was found between at 6 months and at last follow-up (P>0.05). The fusion rate was 55.3% (21/38), 92.1% (35/38), and 100% (38/38) at 3 months, 6 months, and last follow-up postoperatively. The intervertebral space height was increased significantly at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and last follow-up postoperatively when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05); and the loss of intervertebral space height was significant at last follow-up when compared with postoperative at 3 days (P<0.05).ConclusionThe allograft interbody fusion Cage contributes to the spine interbody fusion by providing an earlier stability and higher fusion rate.
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.
Based on the surgical model using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis, this paper presents the investigations of the biomechanical characteristics of cage and pedicle screw in lumbar spinal fusion implant fixed system under different combinations with finite element method. Firstly, combining the CT images with finite element pretreatment software, we established three dimensional nonlinear finite element model of human lumbar L4-L5 segmental slight slippage and implant under different fixed combinations. We then made a comparison analysis between the biomechanical characteristics of lumbar motion range, stress distribution of cage and pedicle screw under six status of each model which were flexion, extension, left lateral bending, right lateral bending, left axial rotation and right axial rotation. The results showed that the motion ranges of this model under different operations were reduced above 84% compared with those of the intact model, and the stability of the former was improved significantly. The stress values of cage and pedicle screw were relatively larger when they were fixed by single fusion device additional unilateral pedicle screw, but there was no statistically significant difference. The above research results would provide reference and confirmation for further biomechanics research of TLIF extracorporal specimens, and finally provide biomechanical basis for the feasibility of unilateral internal fixed diagonal intervertebral fusion TLIF surgery.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of O-arm navigation and ultrasound volume navigation (UVN) in guiding screw placement during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery. Methods Sixty patients who underwent MIS-TLIF surgery for lumbar disc herniation between June 2022 and June 2023 and met the selection criteria were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to group A (screw placement guided by UVN during MIS-TLIF) or group B (screw placement guided by O-arm navigation during MIS-TLIF), with 30 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in baseline data, including gender, age, body mass index, and surgical segment, between the two groups (P>0.05). Intraoperative data, including average single screw placement time, total radiation dose, and average single screw effective radiation dose, were recorded and calculated. Postoperatively, X-ray film and CT scans were performed at 10 days to evaluate screw placement accuracy and assess facet joint violation. Pearson correlation and Spearman correlation analyses were used to observe the relationship between the studied parameters (average single screw placement time and screw placement accuracy grading) and BMI. Results The average single screw placement time in group B was significantly shorter than that in group A, and the total radiation dose of single segment and multi-segment and the average single screw effective radiation dose in group B were significantly higher than those in group A (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total radiation dose between single segment and multiple segments in group B (P>0.05), while the total radiation dose of multiple segments was significantly higher than that of single segment in group A (P<0.05). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of screw implantation between the two groups (P>0.05). In both groups, the grade 1 and grade 2 screws broke through the outer wall of the pedicle, and no screw broke through the inner wall of the pedicle. There was no significant difference in the rate of facet joint violation between the two groups (P>0.05). In group A, both the average single screw placement time and screw placement accuracy grading were positively correlated with BMI (r=0.677, P<0.001; r=0.222, P=0.012), while in group B, neither of them was correlated with BMI (r=0.224, P=0.233; r=0.034, P=0.697). Conclusion UVN-guided screw placement in MIS-TLIF surgery demonstrates comparable efficiency, visualization, and accuracy to O-arm navigation, while significantly reducing radiation exposure. However, it may be influenced by factors such as obesity, which poses certain limitations.
Objective To compare the mid-term effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted with three-dimensional microscope in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods A total of 41 single level lumbar spondylolisthesis patients who met the selection criteria were retrospectively collected between June 2018 and September 2019. Twenty-three patients were treated with UBE-TLIF (study group) and 18 with MIS-TLIF assisted with three-dimensional microscope (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, Meyerding degree of slippage, type of spondylolisthesis, lesion segment, course of disease, and preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) level, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), and disc height (DH) between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss, Hb level between preoperative and postoperative at 1 day, and complications were compared between the two groups. The recovery of clinical sign and symptom was evaluated by VAS score and ODI before operation, and at 1 month, 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years after operation. The LL and DH were measured by radiography before operation and at last follow-up, and the fusion rate was calculated according to Suk grade at last follow-up. ResultsAll the operations were successfully completed. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups (P>0.05); the hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss, and Hb difference between pre- and post-operation in the study group were significantly less than those in the control group (P<0.05). Both groups were followed up 36-48 months, with an average of 39.2 months. In the study group, 1 case of dural tear and 2 cases of Cage subsidence occurred, without postoperative infection and epidural hematoma; in the control group, infection occurred in 1 case, dural tear in 2 cases, Cage subsidence in 1 case, and no epidural hematoma occurred; there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (13.04% vs. 22.22%) (χ2=0.601, P=0.438). The VAS score and ODI at each time point after operation in both groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation, and further improved with time (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05); the ODI of the study group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 1 and 3 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The imaging test showed that the intervertebral fusion rates were 95.7% in the study group and 94.4% in the control group at last follow-up, with no significant difference (χ2=0.032, P=0.859). At last follow-up, LL and DH in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and the difference between before and after operation showed no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionBoth UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF assisted with three-dimensional microscope have the advantages of clear intraoperative field and high surgical efficiency in treating lumbar spondylolisthesis, and can obtain satisfactory mid-term effectiveness. Compared with MIS-TLIF assisted with three-dimensional microscope, UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less bleeding and faster recovery.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsA retrospective analysis was made of 161 patients with single segment L4 or L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis treated between January 2013 and December 2015. According to the implantation of Cage, they were divided into trial group (85 cases, modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage implanted in TLIF) and control group (76 cases, traditional nondirection-changeable Cage implanted in TLIF). There was no significant difference in the general data of gender, age, disease duration, slippage segment, and slippage grade between the two groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative implantation time of Cage, Cage position adjustments times, fluoroscopy times during implantation of Cage, fluoroscopy exposure time, and total operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the patients before operation, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and the incidence of complications was recorded and analyzed. CT examinations were performed at 6 and 12 months after operation, and lumbar fusion was evaluated by Bridwell criteria.ResultsThe intraoperative implantation time of Cage, Cage position adjustments times, fluoroscopy times during implantation of Cage, fluoroscopy exposure time, and total operation time in trial group were significant less than those in control group (P<0.05). All the 161 patients were followed up 12-18 months (mean, 14.3 months). There was 1 case of dural sac tear in the trial group and 1 case of superficial infection in the control group; no complication such as dural tear and infection occurred in other patients. The fusion rate was 76.5% (64/85) in the trial group and 57.9% (44/76) in the control group at 6 months after operation, showing significant difference (χ2=6.44, P=0.02); at 12 months after operation, the fusion rate was 96.5% (82/85) in the trial group and 90.8% (69/76) in the control group (including 3 cases of Cage displacement and 4 cases of screw breakage), showing no significant difference in the fusion rate between the two groups (χ2=1.54, P=0.26). The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups decreased gradually at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and improved significantly when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups before and after operation (P>0.05).ConclusionBoth Cages can obtain the similar effectiveness. The modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage can significantly reduce the fluoroscopy times and radiation dose during TLIF, shorten the operation time, and effectively reduce the radiation exposure of patients and medical staff.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open freehand TLIF for the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DSL) and analyse the influence on postoperative adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD). Methods The clinical data of 116 patients with L4、5 DLS who were admitted between November 2019 and October 2021 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical methods, they were divided into the robotic group (45 cases, who underwent robot-assisted MIS-TLIF) and the open group (71 cases, who underwent open freehand TLIF). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, body mass index, DLS Meyerding grading, and preoperative Pfirrmann grading, Weishaupt grading, L3, 4 intervertebral disc height (DH), L3, 4 intervertebral mobility, sagittal parameters [including pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT)], and Cage height (P>0.05). The grade of facet joint violation (FJV) by pedicle screws on the superior articular process was assessed postoperatively. Sagittal parameters, L3, 4 DH, L3, 4 DH loss, and L3, 4 intervertebral mobility were measured preoperatively and at last follow-up in order to determine whether ASD occurred. Based on the occurrence of postoperative ASD, logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for ASD after TLIF. Results Patients in both groups were followed up 21-47 months, with a mean of 36.1 months; there was no significant difference in the follow-up time between the two groups (P>0.05). The occurrence of postoperative FJV was significantly better in the robotic group than in the open group (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the difference in the change values of sagittal parameters PI, PT, SS, and LL was not significant when comparing the two groups of patients (P>0.05); the change values of L3, 4 DH and L3, 4 DH loss in the robotic group were smaller than those in the open group, and the change value of L3, 4 intervertebral mobility was larger than that in the open group, and the differences were significant (P<0.05). At last follow-up, ASD occurred in 8 patients (17.8%) in the robotic group and 35 patients (49.3%) in the open group, and the difference in ASD incidence between the two groups was significant (P<0.05). logistic regression analysis showed that open surgery, preoperative Pfirrmann grading Ⅳ-Ⅴ, preoperative Weishaupt grading ≥2, and postoperative FJV grading ≥1 were risk factors for the development of ASD after TLIF (P<0.05). ConclusionCompared with traditional open surgery, orthopedic robot-assisted MIS-TLIF in the treatment of single-level DLS can more accurately insert pedicle screws, reduce the loss of DH and the occurrence of FJV, and effectively reduce the incidence of mid-postoperative ASD. Preoperative disc and synovial joint degeneration in adjacent segments, nonrobotic-assisted minimally invasive therapy, and FJV are risk factors for ASD after TLIF.
ObjectiveTo compare the effect of intravenous 20% mannitol or dexamethasone (DM) on low back and leg pain after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). MethodsBetween October 2012 and September 2013, 100 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases underwent MI-TLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups:34 patients received intravenous 20% mannitol after operation (mannitol group); 32 patients received intravenous DM after operation (DM group); and 34 patients received neither dehydrating agent nor steroid after operation (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, clinical symptoms, lesion types, and lesion segments between groups (P>0.05). The serum levels of inflammatory factors[tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), interleukin 1β (IL-1β), and IL-6] were measured by ELISA at pre-operation and 3, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours after operation. Low back and leg pain was determined by using visual analogue scale (VAS) score after operation. ResultsAll procedures were smoothly performed without major complications of nerve root injury, hematoma, or infection. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of low back pain showed no significant difference between groups at all time points after operation (P>0.05); the VAS score of leg pain in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at all time points (P<0.05), and than those in the mannitol group at 3, 24, 48, and 96 hours after operation (P<0.05). The serum level of TNF-α in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at all time points (P<0.05), and than that in the mannitol group at 3, 48, 72, and 96 hours after operation (P<0.05). The serum level of IL-1β in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at 3, 24, 48, and 72 hours after operation (P<0.05), and than that in the mannitol group at all time points after operation (P<0.05). The serum level of IL-6 in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at 3 and 24 hours after operation (P<0.05), and than that in the mannitol group at 3, 24, and 48 hours after operation (P<0.05). ConclusionIntravenous 20% mannitol may has no effect on postoperative low back and leg pain, while DM can markedly relieve leg pain after MI-TLIF.
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 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.