ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis between two different fusion surgeries combined with pedicle screw fixation system. MethodsA retrospectively analysis was made on the clinical data of 98 patients with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis treated between February 2009 and May 2012. Of 98 cases, 53 underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with internal fixation (group A), and 45 underwent posterolateral fusion (PLF) with internal fixation (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, segmental lesions, and degree of spondylolisthesis between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, reduction rate of spondylolisthesis, reduction loss rate, fusion rate, intervertebral space height, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and the recovery rate of JOA score were compared between 2 groups. ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss of group A were significantly higher than those of group B (P<0.05). Dural tear occured in 4 cases of group A and 1 case of group B during operation; 6 cases had radicular symptoms after operation in group A; incision infection was found in 1 case of 2 groups respectively. The follow-up time was 24-36 months in group A and was 26-40 months in group B. No significant difference was found in the JOA score at preoperation and 2 weeks after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The JOA score and the recovery rate of JOA score of group A were significantly better than those of group B at 2 years after operation (P<0.05). X-ray film showed that the reduction rate of group A was significantly higher than that of group B after 2 weeks of operation (P<0.05); the reduction loss rate of group A was significantly lower than that of group B after 2 years after operation (P<0.05). The intervertebral space height of group A was significantly higher than that of group B at 2 weeks and 2 years after operation (P<0.05). The fusion rate of group A was significantly better than that of group B at 2 years after operation (P<0.05). ConclusionPLIF can achieve a greater degree of reduction, better restore disc height, and lumbar curvature than PLF. PLIF is superior to PLF in maintaining intervertebral height after operation. And PLIF has higher fusion rate, restores the stability of the spine in a greater extent, and it also can achieve a better long-term outcome.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and changes of sagittal spino-pelvic parameters between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of the low-degree isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween May 2012 and May 2013, 86 patients with single segmental isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree Ⅰ or Ⅱ) were treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (minimally invasive group) in 39 cases, and by open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in 47 cases (open group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, degree of lumbar spondylolisthesis, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The following sagittal spino-pelvic parameters were compared between 2 groups before and after operation: the percentage of slipping (PS), intervertebral height, angle of slip (AS), thoracolumbar junction (TLJ), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), spino-sacral angle (SSA), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI). Pearson correlation analysis of the changes between pre- and post-operation was done. ResultsPrimary healing of incision was obtained in all patients of 2 groups. The postoperative hospital stay of minimally invasive group [(5.1±1.6) days] was significantly shorter than that of open group [(7.2±2.1) days] (t=2.593, P=0.017). The patients were followed up 11-20 months (mean, 15 months). The reduction rate was 68.53%±20.52% in minimally invasive group, and was 64.21%±30.21% in open group, showing no significant difference (t=0.725, P=0.093). The back and leg pain VAS scores, and ODI at 3 months after operation were significantly reduced when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found between 2 groups (P>0.05). The postoperative other sagittal spino-pelvic parameters were significantly improved (P<0.05) except PI (P>0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). The correlation analysis showed that ODI value was related to the SVA, SSA, PT, and LL (P<0.05). ConclusionBoth minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion can significantly improve the sagittal spino-pelvic parameters in the treatment of low-degree isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The reconstruction of SVA, SSA, PT, and LL are related to the quality of life.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect and safety of tranexamic acid sequential rivaroxaban on perioperative blood loss and preventing thrombosis for elderly patients during lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) with a prospective randomized controlled study.MethodsBetween April and October 2019, the elderly patients with lumbar degenerative diseases requiring LIF were included in the study, among which were 80 patients met the selection criteria. According to the antifibrinolysis and anticoagulation protocols, they were randomly divided into a tranexamic acid sequential rivaroxaban group (trial group) and a simple rivaroxaban group (control group) on average. Finally, 69 patients (35 in the trial group and 34 in the control group) were included for comparison. There was no significant difference in general data (P>0.05) such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, diseased segment, type of disease, and preoperative hemoglobin between the two groups. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage within 3 days after operation, perioperative total blood loss, and proportion of blood transfusion patients were compared between the two groups, as well as postoperative venous thrombosis of lower extremities, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding-related complications.ResultsThe operations of the two groups completed successfully, and there was no significant difference in the operation time (P>0.05); the intraoperative blood loss, drainage within 3 days after operation, and perioperative total blood loss in the trial group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The proportion of blood transfusion patients in the trial group was 25.71% (9/35), which was significantly lower than that in the control group [52.94% (18/34)] (χ2=5.368, P=0.021). Postoperative incision bleeding occurred in 4 cases of the trial group and 3 cases of the control group, and there was no significant difference in bleeding-related complications between the two groups (P=1.000). There was 1 case of venous thrombosis of the lower extremities in each group after operation, and there was no significant difference in the incidence between the two groups (P=1.000). Besides, no pulmonary embolism occurred in the two groups.ConclusionPerioperative use of tranexamic acid sequential rivaroxaban in elderly LIF patients can effectively reduce the amount of blood loss and the proportion of blood transfusion patients without increasing the risk of postoperative thrombosis.
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.