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 clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion（PLIF） using simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixationand autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolisthesis. Methods From March 2003 to March 2004，Twenty-seven patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis were divided in two groups. In group A, 15 patients were treated by PLIF using simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixation, including 4 males and 11 females, aging 53-68 years. Isthmic defectswere located at L4 in 9 cases, at L5 in 6 cases. Four patients were smokers.Thepreoperative mean disc space height was 5.4±2.3 mm, the mean percentage of slip was 36.8％±7.2%. In group B, 12 patients were treated by PLIF using autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixation, including 3 males and 9 females, aging 56 years. Isthmic defects were located at L4 in 8 cases, atL5 in 4 cases. Five patients were smokers. The preoperative mean disc space height was 5.7±2.5 mm, the mean percentage of slip was 37.8%±6.2%. Two groupswere compared in the amount of blood loss, duration of hospitalization, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, the intervertebral disc space height, the postoperative degree of slip and the fusion rate. Results All patientswere followed up for 24-38 months. The mean follow-up was 29(24-36) months in group A and26(24-38) months in group B. There were no statistically significant differences infollow-up period, age,sex, the location of isthmic defects, smoking, the preoperative disc space height and the percentage of slip between two groups (Pgt;0.05).There were no statistically significant differences in the amount of blood loss, the duration of hospitalization, the fusion time between two groups(Pgt;0.05). But there were statistically significant differences in the back pain score, the radiating pain score and the fusion rate between two groups(Plt;0.05).Thepo stoperative disc space height and the degree of slip of the last follow-up were5.8±2.2 mm and 25.6％±7.2% in group A, 6.2±2.5 mm and 24.1％±7.4 % ingroupB, showing statistically significant difference (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The PLIF using autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixations ismore beneficial to improving the fusion rate and preventing longterm instabilities than simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolisthesis.
ObjectiveTo summarize the advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion, and provide reference for its prevention.MethodsThe definition, development, clinical significance, and related risk factors of Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion were throughout reviewed by referring to relevant domestic and doreign literature in recent years.ResultsAt present, there is no consensus on the definition of Cage subsidence, and mostly accepted as the disk height reduction greater than 2 mm. Cage subsidence mainly occurs in the early postoperative stage, which weakens the radiological surgical outcome, and may further damage the effectiveness or even lead to surgical failure. Cage subsidence is closely related to the Cage size and its placement location, intraoperative endplate preparation, morphological matching of disk space to Cage, bone mineral density, body mass index, and so on.ConclusionThe appropriate size and shape of the Cage usage, the posterolateral Cage placed, the gentle endplate operation to prevent injury, the active perioperative anti-osteoporosis treatment, and the education of patients to control body weight may help to prevent Cage subsidence and ensure good surgical results.
ObjectiveTo review the research progress and clinical application of allograft bone spacer in cervical and lumbar interbody fusion. MethodsLiterature about allograft bone spacer in cervical and lumbar degenerative disease was reviewed and analyzed, including the advantages and disadvantages of allograft material, fusion rate, effectiveness, and complications. ResultsFusion rate and effectiveness of allograft bone spacers were similar to those of autograft and polyetheretherketone spacers, and they were recommended by many orthopedists. However, indications, long-term effectiveness, and complications were not clear. ConclusionFurther study on allograft bone spacer in cervical and lumbar interbody fusion should be focused on optimal indications and long-term effectiveness.
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.
Objective To summarize the progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods The relevant literature about percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed, the approaches, technical characteristics, short- and long-term effectiveness, and complications of different surgical procedures were summarized. Results Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and reliable treatment. At present, the main surgical methods in clinical application can be roughly summarized as percutaneous endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PTLIF), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic oblique lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-OLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion/Z’s percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF/ZELIF), and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF). Each surgical method has its own technical characteristics and development. Conclusion Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a kind of combined technology based on the individualization of the patient’s anatomical structure and the technical differentiation of the surgeon. Surgical experience, choosing adaptive indication and operative way reasonably are the key for the success.
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.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between three-dimensional (3D) printed porous titanium alloy cage (3D Cage) and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage (PEEK Cage) in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods A total of 66 patients who were scheduled to undergo PLIF between January 2018 and June 2019 were selected as the research subjects, and were divided into the trial group (implantation of 3D Cage, n=33) and the control group (implantation of PEEK Cage, n=33) according to the random number table method. Among them, 1 case in the trial group did not complete the follow-up exclusion study, and finally 32 cases in the trial group and 33 cases in the control group were included in the statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in gender, age, etiology, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, JOA score, intervertebral height loss, and interbody fusion were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results The operations of two groups were completed successfully. There was 1 case of dural rupture complicated with cerebrospinal fluid leakage during operation in the trial group, and no complication occurred in the other patients of the two groups. All incisions healed by first intention. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 16.7 months). The JOA scores at 1 year after operation in both groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05) in the difference between pre- and post-operation and the improvement rate of JOA score at 1 year after operation. X-ray film reexamination showed that there was no screw loosening, screw rod fracture, Cage collapse, or immune rejection in the two groups during follow-up. At 3 months and 1 year after operation, the rate of intervertebral height loss was significantly lower in the trial group than in the control group (P<0.05). At 3 and 6 months after operation, the interbody fusion rating of trial group was significantly better in the trial group than in the control group (P<0.05); and at 1 year after operation, there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThere is no significant difference between 3D Cage and PEEK Cage in PLIF, in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative neurological recovery, and final intervertebral fusion. But the former can effectively reduce vertebral body subsidence and accelerate intervertebral fusion.