Objective To summarize the basic research and the cl inical appl ication of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage. Methods Recent l iterature concerning biodegradable interbody fusion Cage at home and abroad was extensively reviewed, and current developments of the basic research and the cl inical appl ication of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage were investigated. Results Basic research showes that the stiffness of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage is lower than that of metall ic Cage, so it can enhance interbody fusion. As interbody fusion proceeded, biodegradable interbody fusion Cage degrades constantly, but the speed of degradation can not keep in parallel with that of fusion. In addition, the tissue response to degradation products is controversy. Cl inical appl ication showes that the biodegradable interbody fusion Cage can enhance interbody fusion and maintain disc space height. The short term results are good, however, the long term results need further observation. Conclusion Biodegradable interbody fusion Cage can effectively enhance interbody fusion.
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 investigate the early effctiveness of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with pedicle screw fixation via small incision Wiltse approach for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsBetween January 2016 and December 2016, 21 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis were treated with OLIF and pedicle screw fixation via small incision Wiltse approach. There were 9 males and 12 females, aged 57-73 years, with an average age of 64.5 years. The disease duration was 24-60 months, with an average of 34.6 months. All cases were spondylolisthesis at L4 (15 cases of degreeⅠ, 6 cases of degreeⅡ); 1 case had vertebral arch isthmus, and 20 cases had spinal stenosis. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system was used to evaluate the effectiveness before operation and at last follow-up. Before operation and at 2 days after operation, anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films and CT were taken to measure the sagittal diameter and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal, and calculate the intervertebral height and degree of spondylolisthesis. At 6 months after operation, the intervertebral fusion was evaluated by CT.ResultsThe operation time was 120-180 minutes, with an average of 155 minutes; the intraoperative blood loss was 100-340 mL, with an average of 225.5 mL. One patient had slight injury of lower endplate, 1 patient had numbness of thigh and weakness of hip flexion after operation, 1 patient had sympathetic nerve trunk injury. All the cases were followed up 12-18 months, with an average of 14.3 months. The symptoms of low back pain, leg pain, and numbness of lower limbs significantly relieved after operation, and there was no complication such as protrusion of fusion cage, screw breakage, and endplate collapse. At 2 days after operation, the intervertebral height, degree of spondylolisthesis, sagittal diameter of spinal canal, and cross-sectional area of spinal canal significantly improved compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). At 6 months after operation, CT showed that 1 patient had poor interbody fusion (grade Ⅲ), the other 20 patients had good interbody fusion (grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ), and the interbody fusion rate was 95.2%. At last follow-up, JOA score of lumbar spine significantly increased compared with that before operation (t=24.980, P=0.000).ConclusionOLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation via small incision Wiltse approach for the lumbar spondylolisthesis has minimally invasive features, such as less trauma, fewer complications, and higher intervertebral fusion rate. It is a safe and effective method.
Objective To 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.
ObjectiveTo compare the biomechanical differences between the kidney-shaped nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) Cage and the bullet-shaped n-HA/PA66 Cage. MethodsL2-L5 spinal specimens were selected from 10 adult male pigs. L2, L3 and L4, L5 served as a motor unit respectively, 20 motor units altogether. They were divided into 4 groups (n=5):no treatment was given as control group (group A); nucleus pulposus resection was performed (group B); bullet-shaped Cage (group C), and kidney-shaped Cage (group D) were used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) through left intervertebral foramen and supplemented by posterior pedicle screw fixation. The intervertebral height (IH) and the position of Cages were observed on the X-ray films. The range of motion (ROM) was measured. ResultsThere was no significant difference in the preoperative IH among 4 groups (F=0.166, P=0.917). No significant change was found in IH between at pre- and post-operation in group B (P>0.05); it increased after operation in groups C and D, but difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the postoperative IH among groups B, C, and D (P>0.05). The distance from Cage to the left margin was (3.06±0.51) mm in group C (close to the left) and (5.68±0.69) mm in group D (close to the middle), showing significant difference (t=6.787, P=0.000). The ROM in all directions were significantly lower in groups C and D than in groups A and B (P<0.05), and in group A than in group B (P<0.05). The right bending and compression ROM of group C were significantly higher than those of group D (P<0.05), but no statistically significant difference was found in the other direction ROM (P>0.05). ConclusionThe bullet-shaped and kidney-shaped Cages have similar results in restoring IH and maintaining the stability of the spine assisted by internal fixation. Kidney-shaped Cage is more stable than bullet-shaped Cage in the axial compression and the bending load opposite implant, it can be placed in the middle and back of the vertebral body more ideally.
Objective To review the research progress of Modic changes and its influence on lumbar interbody fusion. Methods The domestic and foreign literature related to Modic changes and its influence on lumbar interbody fusion was extensively reviewed. The etiology of Modic changes was summarized, and the treatment measures of Modic changes on lumbar interbody fusion were discussed. Results The etiology of Modic changes is not clear, which may be related to mechanical factors, autoimmune factors, low toxic infection factors, and genetic factors. Modic changes may lead to fusion failure and cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion. Preoperative evaluation of endplate sclerosis, reduction of iatrogenic endplate injury, fine operating of intervertebral space, management of osteoporosis, and selection of appropriate cage can prevent or reduce fusion failure or cage subsidence. Conclusion Modic changes may lead to fusion failure and cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion, and active perioperative intervention of Modic changes is helpful to improve the clinical prognosis.
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.
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.
Spinal fusion is a standard operation for treating moderate and severe intervertebral disc diseases. In recent years, the proportion of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage in spinal fusion surgery has gradually increased. In this paper, the research progress of molding technology and materials used in three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage at present is summarized. Then, according to structure layout, three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cages are classified into five types: solid-porous-solid (SPS) type, solid-porous-frame (SPF) type, frame-porous-frame (FPF) type, whole porous cage (WPC) type and others. The optimization process of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage and the advantages and disadvantages of each type are analyzed and summarized in depth. The clinical application of various types of 3D printed interbody fusion cage was introduced and summarized later. Lastly, combined with the latest research progress and achievements, the future research direction of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage in molding technology, application materials and coating materials is prospected in order to provide some reference for scholars engaged in interbody fusion cage research and application.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2016), CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data were searched to collect studies about Dynesys versus PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease from inception to May 31st 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 22 studies involving 1 482 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with PLIF, Dynesys could reduce operative time (MD=-29.62, 95%CI -36.67 to -22.57), operative blood loss (MD=-112.10, 95%CI -130.60 to -93.61), length of hospital stay (MD=-2.62, 95%CI -4.96 to -0.28), postoperative adjacent segment ROM (MD=-1.29, 95%CI -1.72 to -0.86) and maintain postoperative operated segment ROM (MD=3.53, 95%CI 1.99 to 5.08). There were no significant differences between two groups in postoperative ODI (MD=-1.51, 95%CI -3.58 to 0.55), postoperative back VAS (MD=-0.15, 95%CI -0.38 to 0.08), postoperative leg VAS (MD=-0.09, 95%CI -0.22 to 0.04) and postoperative complications (OR=0.69, 95%CI 0.45 to 1.06). ConclusionThe current evidence shows that compared with PLIF, Dynesys for lumbar degenerative disease has shorter operative time, less operative blood loss, shorter hospitalization days, and Dynesys can also maintain operated segment ROM and delay the degeneration of adjacent segment. Due to the limited quality of the included studies, more studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.