Objective To investigate the effect of the sagittal alignment of the spine and pelvis after surgical posterior intervertebral fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation for low-grade isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and to assess the effectiveness. Methods Between October 2009 and October 2011, 30 patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis underwent surgical posterior intervertebral fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation, and the clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. There were 14 males and 16 females with an average age of 56.7 years (range, 48-67 years). The pre- and post-operative radiographic parameters, such as percentage of slipping (PS), intervertebral space height, angle of slip (AS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar junction angle (TLJ), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), spino-sacral angle (SSA), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI) were measured. The functional evaluation was made using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Pearson correlation were used to investigate the association between all parameters and ODI score. Results PS, intervertebral space height, AS, and ODI were improved significantly compared with properative ones (P lt; 0.05). Significant differences were found in the other parameters between pre- and post-operation (P lt; 0.05) except TLJ and TK. The alteration of SVA showed significant correlation with the changes of PS, PI, PT, LL, SS, AS, SSA, and ODI. The alteration of SSA showed significant correlation with the changes of PS, PI, LL, SS, AS, PT, and ODI. Conclusion Surgical posterior intervertebral fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis can effectively improve and maintain the spinal sagittal parameters. SVA and SSA are adequate to evaluate pre-and post-operative balance. The good clinical outcome is closely related with the improved of SVA and SSA.
Objective To review the progress in the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. Methods The l iterature about the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of AxiaLIF for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases in recent years was reviewed. Results Almost 9 000 procedures performed globally in recent years, AxiaLIF has shown its safety and effectiveness because of high fusion rates, short hospital ization days, and less iatrogenic compl ications in comparison with standard fusion procedures. ConclusionPostoperative long-term outcomes, biomechanics stabil ity, and extended appl ication of AxiaLIF still need a further study,though it suggests an original minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) combined with Prospace and facet fusion using local autograft. Methods Clinical and radiographic data of 76 patients treated by this technique was reviewed from May 2002 to December 2004. Of them, there were 52 males and 24 females, with an average age of 53.2 years (2381 years), including 60 cases of degenerative disc disease, 9 cases of failed back surgery syndrome and 3 cases of spondylolysis. The disese courses were 1.2-8.7 years (mean 3.6 years). The levels of PLIF were:L 2,3 in 2 cases, L 3,4 in 7, L 4,5 in 54, L 5/S 1 in 10, L 4/S 1 in 1 and L 5,6 in 2. After decompression，Prospace was inserted into interbody space bilaterally，and located in disc space 4 mm beyond the rear edge ofthe vertebral body. Local laminectomy autograft was packed both laterally into and between 2 implants. Then the remanent local autograft was placed over facet bed. Pedicle screws were used after insertion of Prospace. Clinical results wereevaluated by the JOA score. Disc height ratio and lumbar lordosis angles were measured on lateral radiographs. Fusion status was determined by evidence of bridge trabeculae across facet joint and interbody space on CT scan without mobility in lateral dynamic X-rays, and no radiolucent gap between Prospace and endplate. Paired t test was used for statistical analysis. Results Mean blood loss and operative time was 384 ml and 178 minutes, respectively. The average JOA score at final follow-up (26.1±2.7) was significantly improved when compared with that of preoperation (14.5±4.0, P＜0.05), with a mean recovery rate of JOA score 81.1% (37.5%-100.0%). The fusion rate was 974%(74/76). Mean disc height ratio and the involved segmental lordosis angle were increased from preoperative 0.27± 0.07 and 5.8±2.2° to 0.33±0.06 and 11.3±2.0° respectively at the final followup, and the differences were significant (P＜0.05). There were no devicerelated complications. Conclusion This surgical technique combined with Prospace interbody device is a safe and effective surgical option for patients with onelevel lumbar disorders when PLIF is warranted.
Objective To review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.
The human spine injury and various lumbar spine diseases caused by vibration have attracted extensive attention at home and abroad. To explore the biomechanical characteristics of different approaches for lumbar interbody fusion surgery combined with an interspinous internal fixator, device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM), finite element models of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are created by simulating clinical operation based on a three-dimensional finite element model of normal human whole lumbar spine. The fusion level is at L4–L5, and the DIAM is implanted between spinous process of L4 and L5. Transient dynamic analysis is conducted on the ALIF, TLIF and LLIF models, respectively, to compute and compare their stress responses to an axial cyclic load. The results show that compared with those in ALIF and TILF models, contact forces between endplate and cage are higher in LLIF model, where the von-Mises stress in endplate and DIAM is lower. This implies that the LLIF have a better biomechanical performance under vibration. After bony fusion between vertebrae, the endplate and DIAM stresses for all the three surgical models are decreased. It is expected that this study can provide references for selection of surgical approaches in the fusion surgery and vibration protection for the postsurgical lumbar spine.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. MethodsRetrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 26 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation, who were in line with the selection criteria and underwent MIS-TLIF in 14 patients (MIS-TLIF group) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in 12 patients (OTLIF group) between December 2007 and May 2012. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, level of disc herniation, side of disc herniation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and complications were compared between 2 groups. The clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. The fusion rate was determined by using CT three-dimensional reconstruction and dynamic lumbar radiography at last follow-up. ResultsPrimary healing of incisions was obtained in both groups. No difference was found in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.858, P=0.399), but MIS-TLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume than OTLIF group (P<0.05). The average follow-up duration was 34.1 months with a range of 12-50 months. No complication of dural tear, infection, spinal nerve trauma, and implant failure occurred. The VAS scores of lower back pain and radicular pain and ODI scores at preoperation showed no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of lower back pain and ODI score at 1 day after operation in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the OTLIF group (P<0.05), but no difference was found in VAS scores of radicular pain between 2 groups (P>0.05). Difference in all scores was not significant at last follow-up between 2 groups (P>0.05). The fusion rate was 92.8% (13/14) in MIS-TLIF group, and was 100% (12/12) in OTLIF group at last follow-up. ConclusionMIS-TLIF is a safe and effective procedure for upper lumbar disc herniation as an alternative to other techniques.
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 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 A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to study the effectiveness and safety of intravenous different doses tranexamic acid (TXA) in single-level unilateral minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods The patients treated with single-level unilateral MIS-TLIF between September 2019 and October 2020 were enrolled and randomly classified into low-dose TXA (LD) group (n=39), high-dose TXA (HD) group (n=39), and placebo-controlled (PC) group (n=38). The LD, HD, and PC groups received intravenous TXA 20 mg/kg, TXA 50 mg/kg, the same volume of normal saline at 30 minute before skin incision after general anesthesia, respectively. There was no significant difference on baseline characteristics and preoperative laboratory results among 3 groups (P>0.05), including age, gender, body mass index, surgical segments, hematocrit (HCT), hemoglobin (HGB), prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), D-dimer, fibrin degradation products (FDP), activated partial prothromboplastin time (APTT), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatinine (Cr), urea. The intraoperative blood loss (IBL), postoperative drainage volume, operation time, total blood loss (TBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), blood transfusion, hematological examination indexes on the first day after operation, and the incidence of complications within 1 month were compared among the 3 groups. Results There were 3, 2, and 4 patients in the LD, HD, and PC groups who underwent autologous blood transfusion, respectively, and there was no allogeneic blood transfusion patients in the 3 groups. There was no significant difference in IBL, postoperative drainage volume, and operation time between groups (P>0.05). The TBL, HBL, and the decreased value of HGB in LD and HD groups were significantly lower than those in PC group (P<0.05), and TBL and HBL in HD group were significantly lower than those in LD group (P<0.05); the decreased value of HGB between LD group and HD group showed no significant difference (P>0.05). On the first day after operation, D-dimer in LD and HD groups were significantly lower than that in PC group (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between LD and HD groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in other hematological indexes between groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 1 month, and there was no TXA-related complication such as deep venous thrombosis of lower extremity, pulmonary embolism, and epilepsy in the 3 groups. ConclusionIntravenous administration of TXA in single-level unilateral MIS-TLIF is effective and safe in reducing postoperative TBL and HBL within 1 day in a dose-dependent manner. Also, TXA can reduce postoperative fibrinolysis markers and do not increase the risk of thrombotic events, including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
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.