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.
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.
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.
【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effectiveness of surgical treatment for discogenic low back pain (DLBP) by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF). Methods Between March 2006 and July 2009, 57 patients with single-level DLBP were treated by minimally invasive TLIF combined with UPSF, including 27 males and 30 females with an average age of 45.6 years (range, 38-61 years) and a disease duration of 3.8 years (range, 9 months to 11 years). The involved segments included L2，3 in 2 cases, L3，4 in 5 cases, L4，5 in 29 cases, and L5, S1 in 21 cases. The operative time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, hospitalization times, fusion rate, and complications were observed. The effectiveness were evaluated through Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue score (VAS), and the operative outcomes were compared in different groups classified according to various pressures of the contrast medium and sensitivities to discoblock after inducing consistent pain. Results The operation time, incision length, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and hospitalization times were (84.6 ± 37.4) minutes, (3.4 ± 0.6) cm, (132.5 ± 23.2) mL, (58.7 ± 21.4) mL, and (6.5 ± 0.8) days, respectively. All patients were followed up 2 years and 2 months to 5 years and 4 months (mean, 3.2 years). At last follow-up, ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P lt; 0.05). The effectiveness according to ODI were excellent in 27 cases, good in 22 cases, fair in 6 cases, and poor in 2 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 86.0%. All patients acquired b interbody fusion. At last follow-up according to ODI and VAS scores, better results were found in patients of low-pressure sensitive group and high-sensitive discoblock group (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF combined with UPSF is reliable for DLBP with minimal surgical trauma, less paravertebral tissue injury, and fewer complications, but the indications for operation must be strictly followed. Patients being sensitive to low-pressure or high-sensitive to discoblock can achieve better surgical results.
Objective To analyze the medium and long-term effectiveness of microendoscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases in comparison with conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF. Methods Between November 2008 and March 2013, 53 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative diseases were enrolled. According to the different working channel performed, 28 patients were treated by microendoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF (observation group), while the remaining cases received conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF via Wiltse approach (control group). Preoperative baseline data, including age, gender, body mass index, disease etiology, operated level, the ration for requiring bilateral canal decompression, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) socre of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, showed no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative analgesic drug dose, postoperation in-bed time, and perioperative complication incidence were recorded respectively and compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation of interbody fusion was performed based on Bridwell grading system at 2 years after operation. VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, and ODI score were assessed before operation, at 2 years after operation, and at last follow-up respectively. Surgical outcome satisfaction was assessed by modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up. Results When compared with those in control group, both intraoperative blood loss and postoperative analgesic drug dose were significantly decreased in observation group (P<0.05); similarly, the operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time were also significantly increased in observation group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference of postoperative in-bed time between the two groups (t=–0.812, P=0.420). Both groups were followed up 6-10.3 years, with an average of 7.9 years. Regarding perioperative complication, its incidence was 14.3% and 20.0% in observation group and control group, respectively, showing no significant difference between both groups (χ2=0.306, P=0.580). Specifically, there were intraspinal hematoma formation in 1 case, incision infection in 1 case, urinary infection in 1 case, transient delirium in 1 case in observation group. By contrast, there were dural tear and cerebrospinal fluid leakage in 1 case, urinary infection in 1 case, pneumonia in 1 case, transient delirium in 2 cases in control group. Bridwell criterion was used to judge the intervertebral fusion at 2 years after operation, the fusion rates of observation group and control group were 92.9% and 92.0%, respectively, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.162, P=0.687). At both 2-year postoperatively and last follow-up, the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, and ODI score were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.01), whereas no significant difference between the two groups at either time point was found (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the results of patients’ satisfaction with surgery evaluated by modified MacNab criteria, and the excellent and good rates of the observation group and the control group were 96.4% and 92.0%, respectively, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.485, P=0.486). Conclusion The medium and long-term effectiveness of microendoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF are similar to those of conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases. The former operation has the additional advantages in terms of more clear surgical site visually, less intraoperative blood loss, and reduced postoperative analgesic dose, all of which seem more feasible to clinical teaching.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) and Wiltse-approach TLIF (W-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsThe clinical data of 47 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria between July 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, in which 21 patients were treated with PE-TLIF (PE-TLIF group) and 26 patients were treated with W-TLIF (W-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease duration, level of spondylolisthesis vertebrae, spondylolisthesis degree, spondylolisthesis type, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and Taillard index (TI) of the operated vertebrae (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative bedridden time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The VAS score and JOA score were used to evaluate the improvement of pain and function. At last follow-up, DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae were measured by X-ray films, and lumbar CT was performed to evaluate the interbody fusion. Results Compared with W-TLIF group, the operation time in PE-TLIF group was significantly longer, but the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were significantly less, and the postoperative bedridden time was significantly shorter (P<0.05). There were 2 cases of transient lower limb radiating pain in PE-TLIF group and 1 case of superficial incision infection in W-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (9.5% vs. 3.8%) between the two groups (χ2=0.037, P=0.848). The patients in both groups were followed up 12-24 months, with an average of 17.3 months in PE-TLIF group and 17.7 months in W-TLIF group. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the JOA scores of the two groups significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). Compared with W-TLIF group, the VAS scores of low back pain in PE-TLIF group significantly lower at 3 days and 3 months after operation (P<0.05), and the JOA score of PE-TLIF group was significantly higher at 3 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in each score at any other time point between the two groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae of the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the differences of each parameter between the two groups (P>0.05). According to Suk’s standard, the fusion rates of PE-TLIF group and W-TLIF group were 90.5% (19/21) and 92.3% (24/26), respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.000, P=1.000). At last follow-up, there was no case of Cage sunk into the adjacent vertebral body, or dislodgement of Cage anteriorly or posteriorly in both groups. Conclusion PE-TLIF and W-TLIF are both effective in the treatment of grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although the operation time is prolonged, PE-TLIF has less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative bedridden time, and can get more obvious short-term improvement of low back pain and function.