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.
ObjectiveTo compare the safety and accuracy of manual and robot-assisted cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis.MethodsThe clinical data of 58 cases of lumbar degenerative disease with osteoporosis treated by CBT screw fixation between February 2017 and February 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 29 cases were fixed with CBT screws assisted by robot (group A), 29 cases were fixed with CBT screws by hand (group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index, lesion type, T-value of bone mineral density, and operative segment (P>0.05), with comparability. The accuracy of implant was evaluated by Kaito’s grading method, and the invasion of CBT screw to the superior articular process was evaluated by Babu’s method.ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss in group A were significantly less than those in group B (t=−8.921, P=0.000; t=−14.101, P=0.000). One hundred and sixteen CBT screws were implanted in the two groups. At 3 days after operation, according to the Kaito’s grading method, the accuracy of implant in group A was 108 screws of grade 0, 6 of grade 1, and 2 of grade 2; and in group B was 86 screws of grade 0, 12 of grade 1, and 18 of grade 2; the difference was significant (Z=4.007, P=0.000). There were 114 accepted screws (98.3%) in group A and 98 (84.5%) in group B, the difference was significant (χ2=8.309, P=0.009). At 3 days after operation, according to Babu’s method, there were 85 screws in grade 0, 3 in grade 1, and 2 in grade 2 in group A; and in group B, there were 91 screws in grade 0, 16 in grade 1, 5 in grade 2, and 4 in grade 3; the difference was significant (Z=7.943, P=0.000). No serious injury of spinal cord, nerve, and blood vessel was found in the two groups. One patient in group A had delayed cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and 2 patients in group B had mild anemia. Both groups were followed up 10-14 months (mean, 11.6 months). The neurological symptoms were improved, and no screw loosening or fracture was found during the follow-up.ConclusionCompared with manual implantation of CBT screw, robot-assisted spinal implant has higher accuracy, lower incidence of invasion of superior articular process, and strong holding power of CBT screw, which can be applied to the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis.
The present study is aimed to investigate the early clinical effects of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 intervertebral fusion cage (n-HA/PA66 cage) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. We selected 27 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who were managed by posterior decompression or reset operation combined with n-HA/PA66 cage intervertebral fusion and internal fixation from August 2010 to January 2012. The oswestry disability index (ODI), low back and leg pain visual analogue score (VAS), and intervertebral height (IH) were evaluated at preoperation, 1 week postoperation and the last follow-up period, respectively. Intervertebral bony fusion was evaluated at the last follow-up time. The patients were followed up for 12-24 months (averaged 19 months). The ODI, VAS and IH were significantly improved at 1 week postoperation and the last follow-up time compared with those at preoperative period (P<0.05). But there was no significant difference between 1 week postoperative and the last follow-up time (P<0.05). Brantigan's standard was used to evaluate fusion at the last follow-up time. There were 19 patients with grade 5 fusion, 8 with grade 4 fusion, with a fusion rate of 100%, and none with grade 1-3 fusions. There was no cage translocation and internal fixation breakage. These results suggested that n-HA/PA66 cage was an ideal biological material in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion and internal fixation operation for treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. It can effectively maintain the intervertebral height and keep a high rate of bony fusion. The early clinical effect has been satisfactory.
ObjectiveTo review the effect of obesity on the effectiveness of posterior lumbar fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).MethodsThe related literature at home and abroad was extensively reviewed. And the difficulty of operation, risk of complications, and long-term effectiveness of posterior lumbar fusion for obese patients with LDD were summarized.ResultsAlthough some relevant literature suggest that the posterior lumbar fusion for obese patients is difficult and the risk of postoperative complications is high, the overall research results do not suggest that obesity is a risk factor for the implementation of posterior lumbar fusion. By assessing the physical condition of patients and strictly grasping the surgical indications, obese patients can obtain good surgical efficacy.ConclusionPosterior lumbar fusion is an effective method for the treatment of LDD in obese patients. However, relevant studies need to be completed to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar fusion for obese patients.
Objective To compare the short-term effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus open-TLIF in treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between February 2010 and February 2011, 147 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases underwent open-TLIF in 104 cases (open-TLIF group) and MIS-TLIF in 43 cases (MIS-TLIF group), and the clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease type, lesion level, disease duration, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), and preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative radiological exposure time, intra- and post-operative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications were compared between 2 groups. The VAS score and ODI were observed during follow-up. The imaging examination was done to observe the bone graft fusion and the locations of internal fixator and Cage. Results There was no significant difference in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.402, P=0.688); MIS-TLIF group had a decreased intra- and post-operative blood loss, shortened postoperative hospitalization time, and increased intraoperative radiological exposure time, showing significant differences when compared with open-TLIF group (P lt; 0.05). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage (2 cases) and superficial infection of incision (2 cases) occurred after operation in open-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 3.8% (4/104); dorsal root ganglion stimulation symptom (3 cases) occurred in MIS-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 7.0% (3/43); there was no significant difference in the complication incidence between 2 groups (χ2=0.657, P=0.417). The patients were followed up 18-26 months (mean, 21 months) in MIS-TLIF group, and 18-28 months (mean, 23 months) in open-TLIF group. The VAS scores and ODI of 2 groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score between 2 groups at discharge and 3 months after operation (P gt; 0.05); VAS score of MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open-TLIF group at last follow-up (t= — 2.022, P=0.047). At 3 months and last follow-up, no significant difference was found in the ODI between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The imaging examination showed good positions of Cage and internal fixator, and bone graft fusion in 2 groups. Conclusion The short-term effectiveness of MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases was similar. MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less invasion and quick recovery, but the long-term effectiveness needs more observation.
Objective To analyze the application research of prehabilitation in patients with lumbar degenerative spine surgery, and to review the intervention content, outcome index, and applied effect of prehabilitation of lumbar spine surgery patients, to provide references for the future clinical development of related research. Methods Guided by the methodology of scope review, systematic searches were conducted on China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP, China Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the database to June 2024, and the included literature was screened, refined and summarized. Results A total of 21 papers were included, including 15 randomized controlled trials, 5 quasi-experimental studies, and 1 retrospective study. The main components of prehabilitation included exercise, preoperative psychological support, nutritional interventions, and multiform health education; and the main outcome indicators included pain, assessment of low back function, sleep quality, anxiety and depression, and healthy quality of life.Conclusion Preoperative prehabilitation has a positive effect on patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease, and the existing studies are heterogeneous in terms of content and outcome indicators, and the follow-up should continue to construct a more scientific and multimodal intervention program and carry out large-scale high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo analyze the restoration of intervertebral height and lordosis of fusion segment after open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Open-TLIF) and minimally invasive-TLIF (MIS-TLIF).MethodsBetween January 2013 and February 2016, patients who treated with TLIF due to lumbar degenerative diseases and met the selection criteria were selected as the study objects. Among them, 41 patients were treated with open-TLIF (Open-TLIF group), 34 patients were treated with MIS-TLIF (MIS-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, disease type, disease duration, pathological segment, and other general data. The intraoperative bleeding volume, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of waist and leg, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded before and after operation. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (ADH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of fusion segment were measured by X-ray film before and at 6 months after operation. The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between pre- and post-operation were calculated.ResultsThe intraoperative bleeding volume and hospital stay in Open-TLIF group were significantly higher than those in MIS-TLIF group (t=14.619, P=0.000; t=10.021, P=0.000). All incisions healed by first intention without early complications. All patients were followed up 6-24 months (mean, 12.6 months) in Open-TLIF group and 6-24 months (mean, 11.5 months) in MIS-TLIF group. The preoperative VAS scores of waist and leg and ODI of the two groups significantly improved (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI between the two groups before operation and at 2 weeks and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed the good intervertebral fusion. There was no significant difference in ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups were not significant (P>0.05). The ADH, PDH, and SL after operation significantly increased in the two groups (P<0.05).ConclusionOpen-TLIF and MIS-TLIF show similar effectiveness and radiological change in the treatment of single lumbar degenerative diseases and the improved intervertebral height and lordosis, but MIS-TLIF can significantly reduce hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss.
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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety of TiRobot-guided percutaneous transpedicular screw implantation.MethodsThe medical records of 158 patients with thoracolumbar fractures and lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent percutaneous transpedicular screw implantation were retrospectively analyzed between January 2018 and December 2020. The patients were divided into trial group (TiRobot-guided screw implantation, 86 cases) and control group (fluoroscopy-guided screw implantation, 72 cases). There was no significant difference in gender, age, pathology, lesion segment, and the average number of screw implantation per case (P>0.05). The operation time, fluoroscopic dose, fluoroscopic time, and fluoroscopic frequency were compared between the two groups. One day postoperatively, the convergence angle was measured and the penetration of the pedicle cortex was evaluated according to Gertzbein-Robbins classification standard.ResultsThe operation time, fluoroscopic dose, fluoroscopic time, and fluoroscopic frequency of the trial group were significantly lesser than those of control group (P<0.05).One day postoperatively, the convergence angle of trial group was (21.10±4.08)°, which was significantly larger than control group (19.17±3.48)° (t=6.810, P=0.000). According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification standard, 446 pedicle screws were implanted in trial group, trajectories were grade A in 377 screws, grade B in 46 screws, grade C in 23 screws, and the accuracy of screw implantation was 94.8%; 380 pedicle screws were implanted in control group, trajectories were grade A in 283 screws, grade B in 45 screws, grade C in 44 screws, grade D in 6 screws, grade E in 2 screws, and the accuracy of screw implantation was 86.3%. There was significant difference in the accuracy of screw implantation between the two groups (χ2=25.950, P=0.000). ConclusionCompared with traditional percutaneous transpedicular screw implantation, TiRobot-guided percutaneous transpedicular screw implantation can improve the accuracy of screw implantation, reduce radiation exposure, and improve surgical safety, which has a good application prospect.
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.