Objective To compare the difference of traumatic related index in serum and its significance between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF. Methods Sixty patients were enrolled by the entry criteria between May and November 2012, and were divided into MIS-TLIF group (n=30) and open TLIF group (n=30). There was no significant difference in gender, age, type of lesions, disease segment, and disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time were recorded, and the pain severity of incision was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS). The serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) were measured at preoperation and at 24 hours postoperatively. The levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) in serum were measured at preoperation and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after operation. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time of MIS-TLIF group were significantly smaller than those of open TLIF group (P lt; 0.05), and the VAS score for incision pain in MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open TLIF group at 1, 2, and 3 days after operation (P lt; 0.05). The levels of CRP, CK, IL-6, and IL-10 in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in open TLIF group at 24 hours after operation (P lt; 0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups before operation (P gt; 0.05). No significant difference was found in TNF-α level between 2 groups at pre- and post-operation (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Compared with the open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF may significantly reduce tissue injury and systemic inflammatory reactions during the early postoperative period.
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 clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion（PLIF） using simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixationand autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolisthesis. Methods From March 2003 to March 2004，Twenty-seven patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis were divided in two groups. In group A, 15 patients were treated by PLIF using simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixation, including 4 males and 11 females, aging 53-68 years. Isthmic defectswere located at L4 in 9 cases, at L5 in 6 cases. Four patients were smokers.Thepreoperative mean disc space height was 5.4±2.3 mm, the mean percentage of slip was 36.8％±7.2%. In group B, 12 patients were treated by PLIF using autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixation, including 3 males and 9 females, aging 56 years. Isthmic defects were located at L4 in 8 cases, atL5 in 4 cases. Five patients were smokers. The preoperative mean disc space height was 5.7±2.5 mm, the mean percentage of slip was 37.8%±6.2%. Two groupswere compared in the amount of blood loss, duration of hospitalization, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, the intervertebral disc space height, the postoperative degree of slip and the fusion rate. Results All patientswere followed up for 24-38 months. The mean follow-up was 29(24-36) months in group A and26(24-38) months in group B. There were no statistically significant differences infollow-up period, age,sex, the location of isthmic defects, smoking, the preoperative disc space height and the percentage of slip between two groups (Pgt;0.05).There were no statistically significant differences in the amount of blood loss, the duration of hospitalization, the fusion time between two groups(Pgt;0.05). But there were statistically significant differences in the back pain score, the radiating pain score and the fusion rate between two groups(Plt;0.05).Thepo stoperative disc space height and the degree of slip of the last follow-up were5.8±2.2 mm and 25.6％±7.2% in group A, 6.2±2.5 mm and 24.1％±7.4 % ingroupB, showing statistically significant difference (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The PLIF using autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixations ismore beneficial to improving the fusion rate and preventing longterm instabilities than simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolisthesis.
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.
Spinal fusion is a standard operation for treating moderate and severe intervertebral disc diseases. In recent years, the proportion of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage in spinal fusion surgery has gradually increased. In this paper, the research progress of molding technology and materials used in three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage at present is summarized. Then, according to structure layout, three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cages are classified into five types: solid-porous-solid (SPS) type, solid-porous-frame (SPF) type, frame-porous-frame (FPF) type, whole porous cage (WPC) type and others. The optimization process of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage and the advantages and disadvantages of each type are analyzed and summarized in depth. The clinical application of various types of 3D printed interbody fusion cage was introduced and summarized later. Lastly, combined with the latest research progress and achievements, the future research direction of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage in molding technology, application materials and coating materials is prospected in order to provide some reference for scholars engaged in interbody fusion cage research and application.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery.MethodsThe clinical data of 40 patients who underwent revision surgery due to Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery betweem April 2013 and March 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 18 patients underwent OLIF (OLIF group) and 22 patients underwent PLIF (PLIF group) for revision. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, body mass index, intervals between primary surgery and revision surgery, number of primary fused levels, disc spaces of Cage dislodgement, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), the segmental lordosis (SL) and disc height (DH) of the disc space of Cage dislodgement, and the lumbar lordosis (LL) before revision (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications of the two groups were recorded and compared. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were evaluated at 3 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and the ODI scores were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation. The SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement and LL were measured at 12 months after operation and compared with those before operation. CT examination was performed at 12 months after operation, and the fusion of the disc space implanted with new Cage was judged by Bridwell grading standard.ResultsThe intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group (t=?12.425, P=0.000); there was no significant difference between the two groups in the operation time and hospital stay (P>0.05). Both groups were followed up 12-30 months, with an average of 18 months. In the OLIF group, 2 patients (11.1%) had thigh numbness and 1 patient (5.6%) had hip flexor weakness after operation; 2 patients (9.1%) in the PLIF group had intraoperative dural sac tear. The other patients’ incisions healed by first intention without early postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (χ2=0.519, P=0.642). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the ODI score of the two groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). At 12 months after operation, SL, LL, and DH in the two groups were significantly increased when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05); SL and DH in the OLIF group were significantly improved when compared with those in the PLIF group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in LL between the two groups (P>0.05). CT examination at 12 months after operation showed that all the operated disc spaces achieved bony fusion. According to the Bridwell grading standard, 12 cases were grade Ⅰ and 6 cases were grade Ⅱ in the OLIF group, and 13 cases were grade Ⅰ and 9 cases were grade Ⅱ in the PLIF group; there was no significant difference between the two groups (Z=–0.486, P=0.627). During follow-up, neither re-displacement or sinking of Cage, nor loosening or fracture of internal fixation occurred.ConclusionOLIF and PLIF can achieve similar effectiveness in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery. OLIF can further reduce intraoperative blood loss and restore the SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement better.
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.
ObjectiveTo compare the effect of intravenous 20% mannitol or dexamethasone (DM) on low back and leg pain after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). MethodsBetween October 2012 and September 2013, 100 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases underwent MI-TLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups:34 patients received intravenous 20% mannitol after operation (mannitol group); 32 patients received intravenous DM after operation (DM group); and 34 patients received neither dehydrating agent nor steroid after operation (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, clinical symptoms, lesion types, and lesion segments between groups (P>0.05). The serum levels of inflammatory factors[tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), interleukin 1β (IL-1β), and IL-6] were measured by ELISA at pre-operation and 3, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours after operation. Low back and leg pain was determined by using visual analogue scale (VAS) score after operation. ResultsAll procedures were smoothly performed without major complications of nerve root injury, hematoma, or infection. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of low back pain showed no significant difference between groups at all time points after operation (P>0.05); the VAS score of leg pain in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at all time points (P<0.05), and than those in the mannitol group at 3, 24, 48, and 96 hours after operation (P<0.05). The serum level of TNF-α in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at all time points (P<0.05), and than that in the mannitol group at 3, 48, 72, and 96 hours after operation (P<0.05). The serum level of IL-1β in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at 3, 24, 48, and 72 hours after operation (P<0.05), and than that in the mannitol group at all time points after operation (P<0.05). The serum level of IL-6 in the DM group was significantly lower than that in the control group at 3 and 24 hours after operation (P<0.05), and than that in the mannitol group at 3, 24, and 48 hours after operation (P<0.05). ConclusionIntravenous 20% mannitol may has no effect on postoperative low back and leg pain, while DM can markedly relieve leg pain after MI-TLIF.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of cortical bone trajectory screw (CBTS) and conventional pedicle screw for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single segment lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between May 2013 and May 2016, a total of 97 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative disease were treated with PLIF. Fifty-one patients were fixed with CBTS in PLIF (trajectory screw group) and 46 with pedicle screw (pedicle screw group). There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, preoperative diagnosis, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, bed rest time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine kinase (CK) concentration, total amount of diclofenac sodium, perioperative complications, ODI, VAS score, and interbody fusion rate were recorded and compared between 2 groups. Results All patients were followed up 12 months. The patients in trajectory screw group had a significantly less operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and serum CK concentration when compared with the patients in pedicle screw group (P<0.05). Thirty-five patients (68.6%) in trajectory screw group and 46 patients (100%) in pedicle screw group were given diclofenac sodium within 48 hours after operation, showing significant difference between 2 groups (χ2=89.334, P=0.000). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between trajectory screw group and pedicle screw group (3.9% vs. 8.7%, P=0.418). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, ODI, and interbody fusion rate at 12 months after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). Conclusion For the single segment degenerative lumbar disease, the use of CBTS or conventional pedicle screw for PLIF can obtain satisfactory clinical function and interbody fusion rate. But the former has the advantages of less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage, less perioperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and bed rest time.
Objective To compare the therapeutic effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lateral fusion (PLF) in treatment of thoracolumbar spine fracture and dislocation. Methods From January 2005 to July 2007, 35 patients (22 males, 13 females, aged 17-53 years old) with thoracolumbar spine fracture and dislocation (T11-L3) received posterior open reduction and pedicle nail-stick system internal fixation. Among which, 14 patients underwent TLIF(group TLIF), and the rest 21 patients underwent PLF (group PLF). According to AO classification, group TLIF had 3 cases of A3, 7 cases of B and 4 cases of C, while group PLF had 4 cases of A3, 10 cases of B and 7 cases of C. Based on American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Scoring Standard formulated in 2000, the motor score of group TLIF and group PLF was (50.6 ± 3.6) and (50.8 ± 4.2) points, respectively; and the sensory score was (170.5 ± 42.7) and (153.8 ± 23.7) points, respectively. No significant difference was noted between 2 groups in general information (P gt; 0.05). Results The operation time of group TLIF and group PLF was (316 ± 32) minutes and (254 ± 27) minutes, and the blood loss of group TLIF and group PLF was (487 ± 184) mL and (373 ± 72) mL, indicating there were significant differences between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). Wounds of all patients were healed by first intention and there was no death, aggravation of neurological function impairment and compl ication of internal fixation instrument loosening and breaking. All 35 cases were followed up for 9-23 months with an average of 14.6 months. Postoperatively, the thoracolumbar bone fusion rate of group TLIF and group PLF was 100% and 85.7%, respectively, indicating there was a significant difference (P lt; 0.05). At 3 months after operation, the motor score of group TLIF and group PLF was increased by (10.4 ± 10.0) and (9.4 ± 9.3) points, respectively; and the sensory score was upgraded by (26.5 ± 22.8) and (28.8 ± 28.4) points, respectively, showing there were no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). At immediate moment, 3, 6 and 12 months after operation, the spine height restoration of group TLIF was (5.4 ± 2.1), (5.4 ± 1.9), (5.4 ± 1.4) and (5.3 ± 1.3) mm, respectively; while it was (5.3 ± 2.6), (5.3 ± 2.2), (4.8 ± 3.1) and (4.2 ± 3.6) mm for group PLF. Meanwhile, the Cobbangle recovery of group TLIF was (14.5 ± 3.5), (14.5 ± 3.6), (14.4 ± 3.4) and (14.4 ± 3.6)o, respectively; while it was (14.3 ± 2.7), (14.2 ± 3.1), (12.2 ± 2.8) and (11.7 ± 3.3)o for group PLF. Concerning the spine height restoration and the Cobb angle recovery, no significant difference was observed between 2 groups at immediate moment and 3 months after operation (P gt; 0.05), but significant differences were noted at 6 and 12 months after operation (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion For the treatment othoracolumbar spine fracture and dislocation, TLIF is superior to PLF in bony fusion and restoration of spine column height.