ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified-TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis in middle-aged and elderly patients.MethodsThe clinical data of 106 patients with mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding classification≤Ⅱ degree) who met the selection criteria between January 2015 and January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. All patients were divided into modified-TLIF group (54 cases) and PLIF group (52 cases) according to the different surgical methods. There was no significant difference in preoperative clinical data of gender, age, disease duration, sliding vertebra, Meyerding grade, and slippage type between the two groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative bed time, hospital stay, and complications of the two groups were recorded and compared. The improvement of pain and function were evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score at preoperation, 1 week, and 1, 6, 12 months after operation, and last follow-up, respectively. The effect of slip correction was evaluated by slip angle and intervertebral altitude at preoperation and last follow-up, and the effectiveness of fusion was evaluated according to Suk criteria.ResultsAll patients were followed up, the modified-TLIF group was followed up 25-36 months (mean, 32.7 months), the PLIF group was followed up 24-38 months (mean, 33.3 months). The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative bed time, and hospital stay of the modified-TLIF group were significantly less than those of the PLIF group (P<0.05). The VAS score and JOA score of both groups were significantly improved at each time point after operation (P<0.05); the scores of the modified-TLIF group were significantly better than those of the PLIF group at 1 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). The slip angle and intervertebral altitude of both groups were obviously improved at last follow-up (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at preoperation and last follow-up (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the fusion rate of the modified-TLIF group and the PLIF group was 96.3% (52/54) and 98.1% (51/52), respectively, and no significant difference was found between the two groups (χ2=0.000, P=1.000). About complications, there was no significant difference between the two groups in nerve injury on the opposite side within a week, incision infection, and pulmonary infection (P>0.05). No case of nerve injury on the operation side within a week or dural laceration occurred in the modified-TLIF group, while 8 cases (15.4%, P=0.002) and 4 cases (7.7%, P=0.054) occurred in the PLIF group respectively.ConclusionModified-TLIF and PLIF are effective in the treatment of mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis in middle-aged and elderly patients. However, modified-TLIF has relatively less trauma, lower blood loss, lower drainage volume, lower incidence of dural laceration and nerve injury, which promotes enhanced recovery after surgery.
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 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.
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.
Objective To study the relationship between sagittal facet joint and degenerative lumber spondylolisthesis (DLS) by observing the changes of the lumbar facet joint angle. Methods Fifty-seven patients with DLS who met the inclusion criteria between January 2013 and February 2016 were collected (DLS group). There were 26 males and 31 females, with the mean age of 54.0 years (range, 34-84 years). Forty patients without DLS at same stage were collected as control group. There were 23 males and 17 females with the mean age of 55.6 years (range, 29-82 years). There was no significant difference in gender and age between 2 groups (P>0.05). The lumbar facet joint angles were measured and compared by MRI scanning images in 2 groups. In DLS group, X-ray films were used to evaluated the degree of the lumbar spondylolisthesis on the basis of the Meyerding standard, and compared the facet joint angles between patients of different DLS degree. Results Facet joint angles in the DLS group [(34.18± 4.81)°] were significantly smaller than those in control group [(45.87±1.09)°] (t=15.073, P=0.000). In DLS group, the patients were rated as degree Ⅰ in 24 cases, degree Ⅱ in 19 cases, degree Ⅲ in 14 cases. As the degree of DLS increased, the lumbar joint angle decreased gradually, and showing significantly differences between patients of different DLS degree (P<0.05). Conclusion Sagittal lumbar facet joint may be one of the main risk factors of DLS.
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 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.
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.
ObjectiveTo explore the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween February 2008 and December 2013, 17 patients with double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion. There were 12 males and 5 females, with an age ranged 48-69 years (mean, 55.4 years). The disease duration ranged from 11 months to 17 years (median, 22 months). According to the Meyerding classification, 30 vertebrea were rated as degree I, 3 as degree Ⅱ, and 1 as degree Ⅲ. L4, 5 was involved in 14 cases and L3, 4 in 3 cases. The preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score was 8.6±3.2. ResultsCerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases because of intraoperative dural tear; primary healing of incision was obtained, with no operation related complication in the other patients. The patients were followed up 1-6 years (mean, 3.4 years). At last follow-up, VAS score was decreased significantly to 1.1±0.4, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative score (t=7.652, P=0.008). X-ray films showed that slippage vertebral body obtained different degree of reduction, with a complete reduction rate of 85% (29/34) at 1 week after operation. All patients achieved bony union at 6-12 months (mean, 7.4 months). According to the Lenke classification, 13 cases were rated as grade A and 4 cases as grade B. No internal fixation loosening and fracture were observed during the follow-up. Intervertebral disc height was maintained, no loss of spondylolisthesis reduction was found. ConclusionIt can obtain satisfactory clinical result to use spinal canal decompression by posterior approach, and screw fixation for posterior fusion in treatment of double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The key points to successful operation include accurate insertion of screw, effective decompression, distraction before reduction, rational use of pulling screws, and interbody fusion.
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.