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.
Objective To compare the short-term effectiveness between dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed, from 14 patients undergoing Dynesys and 18 patients undergoing PLIF to treat lumbar degenerative disease between February 2009 and March 2011. No significant difference in gender, age, duration of disease, and lesion segments was found between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and radiographic results were compared between 2 groups at preoperation and last follow-up. Results Thirty-one cases were followed up 12-21 months (mean, 17 months). No internal fixation loosening, broken screws, and broken rods was found during follow-up. The mean interbody fusion time was 15 months (range, 13-19 months) in PLIF group. The VAS score and ODI were significantly improved in 2 groups at last follow-up when compared with the preoperative ones (P lt; 0.05); but there was no signficant difference between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Imaging assessment: the range of motion (ROM) of operated segment in PLIF group was (0.1 ± 0.4)° at last follow-up, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative ROM (7.8 ± 0.6)° (t=28.500, P=0.004); the ROM in Dynesys group (5.0 ± 1.5)° decreased, but showing no significant difference when compared with preoperative ROM (7.5 ± 0.8)° (t=0.480, P=0.113); and significant difference was found between 2 groups (t=5.260, P=0.008) at last follow-up. The ROM of adjacent segment in Dynesys group at last follow-up (7.2 ± 0.7)° decreased when compared with preoperative ROM (7.3 ± 1.8)°, but showing no significant difference (t=0.510, P=0.108); however, ROM of adjacent segment in PLIF group (8.7 ± 0.4)° increased significantly when compared with preoperative ROM (7.0 ± 1.6)°, showing signifcant difference (t=3.440, P=0.042); and there was significant difference between 2 groups (t= — 2.100, P=0.047) at last follow-up. Conclusion Dynesys and PLIF have equivalent short-term effectivness in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. However, the Dynesys could retain ROM of operated segment without increased ROM of the adjacent segment, which will promote the disc recovery of operated segment and prevent degeneration of adjacent segment.
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 review the feature, biomechanics, and cl inical appl ication of percutaneous 360 degree axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) technique. Methods Recent l iterature on investigation and appl ication of percutaneous360 degree AxiaLIF technique was reviewed. Results Percutaneous 360 degree AxiaLIF technique mainly contained operative approach, axial technique, and posterior fixation. It was obviously different from other lumbar interbody fusion techniques due to its capabil ity of maintaining the integrity of the bilateral facet joints, the anterior/posterior longitudinal l igament, and the annulus fibrosus. Three-dimensional AxiaLIF RodTM provided axial support and firmly fixation, thereby rel ieving stenosis of lumbar intervertebral foramen and restoring the intervertebral disc height and the whole height and physiological curvature of the lumbar spine. The recovery of the intervertebral disc height could restore the folded or crumpled flavum, the posterior longitudinal l igament, and the herniated annulus, resulting in the improvement of stenosis symptoms of nerve root canal or central vertebral canal. Conclusion Percutaneous 360 degree AxiaLIF technique achieves satisfying therapeutic effects, although it has fairly narrow indication and needs long-term follow-up observation.
Objective To review the progress in the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. Methods The l iterature about the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of AxiaLIF for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases in recent years was reviewed. Results Almost 9 000 procedures performed globally in recent years, AxiaLIF has shown its safety and effectiveness because of high fusion rates, short hospital ization days, and less iatrogenic compl ications in comparison with standard fusion procedures. ConclusionPostoperative long-term outcomes, biomechanics stabil ity, and extended appl ication of AxiaLIF still need a further study,though it suggests an original minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases.
ObjectiveTo investigate the correlation between CT value and Cage subsidence in patients with lumbar degenerative disease treated with stand-alone oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). MethodsThe clinical data of 35 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated with stand-alone OLIF between February 2016 and October 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 15 males and 20 females; the age ranged from 29 to 81 years, with an average of 58.4 years. There were 39 operative segments, including 32 cases of single-segment, 2 cases of double-segment, and 1 case of three-segment. Preoperative lumbar CT was used to measure the CT values of the axial position of L1 vertebral body, the axial and sagittal positions of L1-4 vertebral body, surgical segment, and the axial position of upper and lower vertebral bodies as the bone mineral density index, and the lowest T value was recorded by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were recorded before operation and at last follow-up. At last follow-up, the lumbar interbody fusion was evaluated by X-ray films of the lumbar spine and dynamic position; the lumbar lateral X-ray film was used to measure the subsidence of the Cage, and the patients were divided into subsidence group and nonsubsidence group. The univariate analysis on age, gender, body mass index, lowest T value, CT value of vertebral body, disease type, and surgical segment was performed to initially screen the influencing factors of Cage subsidence; further the logistic regression for multi-factor analysis was used to screen fusion independent risk factors for Cage subsidence. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were used to analyze the CT value and the lowest T value to predict the Cage subsidence. Spearman correlation analysis was used to determine the correlation between Cage subsidence and clinical results. Results All the 35 patients were followed up 27-58 months, with an average of 38.7 months. At last follow-up, the VAS and ODI scores were significantly decreased when compared with preoperative scores (t=32.850, P=0.000; t=31.731, P=0.000). No recurrent lower extremity radiculopathy occurred and no patient required revision surgery. Twenty-seven cases (77.1%) had no Cage subsidence (nonsubsidence group); 8 cases (22.9%) had at least radiographic evidence of Cage subsidence, the average distance of Cage subsidence was 2.2 mm (range, 1.1-4.2 mm) (subsidence group). At last follow-up, there was 1 case of fusion failure both in the subsidence group and the nonsubsidence group, there was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate (96.3% vs. 87.5%) between two groups (P=0.410). Univariate analysis showed that the CT value of vertebral body (L1 axial position, L1-4 axial and sagittal positions, surgical segment, and upper and lower vertebral bodies axial positions) and the lowest T value were the influencing factors of Cage subsidence (P<0.05). According to ROC curve analysis, compared with AUC of the lowest T value [0.738, 95%CI (0.540, 0.936)], the AUC of the L1-4 axis CT value was 0.850 [95%CI (0.715, 0.984)], which could more effectively predict Cage subsidence. Multivariate analysis showed that the CT value of L1-4 axis was an independent risk factor for Cage subsidence (P<0.05). Conclusion The CT value measurement of the vertebral body based on lumbar spine CT before stand-alone OLIF can predict the Cage subsidence. Patients with low CT values of the lumbar spine have a higher risk of Cage subsidence. However, the Cage subsidence do not lead to adverse clinical results.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) assisted with microscope in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween January 2011 and June 2012, 52 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis underwent MI-TLIF assisted with microscope. There were 29 males and 23 females with an average age of 46 years (range, 32-67 years). The median disease duration was 3.2 years (range, 3 months to 6 years). There were 38 cases of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis and 14 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis; 12 cases had stenosis secondary to lumbar spondylolisthesis. The affected segments were L4, 5 (29 cases) and L5, S1 (23 cases). According to the Meyerding evaluating system, 24 cases were classified as degree I and 28 cases as degree Ⅱ. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI)were used for clinical assessment, and the clinical effects were also analyzed by Macnab criterion at last follow-up. The radiographic data were used to evaluate reduction of spondylolisthesis, including slipping degree, slipping angle, and intervertebral space height. The fusion rate was assessed by Suk criterion. ResultsThe operations were performed successfully in all patients. No dural tear or cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred during operation. The average operation time was 105 minutes; the average intraoperative blood loss was 225 mL; the average postoperative drainage volume was 75 mL; and the average hospitalization days were 5.5 days. Superficial infection of incision occurred in 1 case and was cured after change dressing, and primary healing of incision was obtained in the others. All patients were followed up 12-26 months (mean, 18 months). No loosening, breakage, and displacement of pedicle screw and no Cage dislocation occurred by X-ray films after operation. The lumbar spondylolisthesis all got good correction. The three-dimensional CT showed continuous bone trabecula between centrums. The VAS score, ODI, and the slipping degree, slipping angle, and intervertebral space height were significantly improved at last follow-up when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). According to Macnab criterion at last follow-up, the results were excellent in 20 cases, good in 29 cases, and fair in 3 cases; the excellent and good rate was 94.2%. According to Suk criterion for fusion, 49 cases obtained complete fusion and 3 cases got possible fusion. ConclusionAs long as indications are seized, MI-TLIF assisted with microscope is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding dergee I or Ⅱ), and it has the advantage of less injury, less blood loss, less complications, and definite short-term effectiveness.
Objective To explore the clinical application value of the spinal robot-assisted surgical system in mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the accuracy of its implantation. Methods The clinical data of 56 patients with Meyerding grade Ⅰ or Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) between January 2017 and December 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Among them, 28 cases were preoperatively planned with robotic arm and percutaneous pedicle screw placement according to preoperative planning (group A); the other 28 cases underwent fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, slippage type, Meyerding grade, and surgical segmental distribution between the two groups (P>0.05). The screw insertion angle was measured by CT, the accuracy of screw implantation was evaluated by Neo’s criteria, and the invasion of superior articular process was evaluated by Babu’s method. Results One hundred and twelve screws were implanted in the two groups respectively, 5 screws (4.5%) in group A and 26 screws (23.2%) in group B penetrated the lateral wall of pedicle, and the difference was significant (χ2=9.157, P=0.002); the accuracy of nail implantation was assessed according to Neo’s criteria, the results were 107 screws of degree 0, 3 of degree 1, 2 of degree 2 in group A, and 86 screws of degree 0, 16 of degree 1, 6 of degree 2, 4 of degree 3 in group B, showing significant difference between the two groups (Z=4.915, P=0.031). In group B, 20 (17.9%) screws penetrated the superior articular process, while in group A, 80 screws were removed from the decompression side, and only 3 (3.8%) screws penetrated the superior articular process. According to Babu’s method, the degree of screw penetration into the facet joint was assessed. The results were 77 screws of grade 0, 2 of grade 1, 1 of grade 2 in group A, and 92 screws of grade 0, 13 of grade 1, 4 of grade 2, 3 of grade 3 in group B, showing significant difference between the two groups (Z=7.814, P=0.029). The screw insertion angles of groups A and B were (23.5±6.6)° and (18.1±7.5)° respectively, showing significant difference (t=3.100, P=0.003). Conclusion Compared to fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement has the advantages such as greater accuracy, lower incidence of screw penetration of the pedicle wall and invasion of the facet joints, and has a better screw insertion angle. Combined with MIS-TLIF, robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement is an effective minimally invasive treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) assisted with microscope for lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 82 patients with lumbar degenerative disease (minimally invasive group) undergoing minimally invasive TLIF assisted with microscope between January 2010 and June 2011, which was compared with those of 76 patients (traditional group) undergoing traditional open TLIF. There was no significant difference in age, gender, disease duration, disease type, lesion level, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), and preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The perioperative related parameters, radiography index, and effectiveness were documented and compared. Results There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative radiological exposure time between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05), but intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume in the minimally invasive group were significantly less than those in the traditional group (P lt; 0.05). Dural tear occurred in 2 patients of the traditional group. Superficial infection of incision occurred in 1 case in each group, respectively; and primary healing of incision was obtained in the other patients. All patients were followed up 12-28 months (mean, 18 months). No failure of internal fixation occurred. Radiological analysis showed that the bone graft fusion rate was 96.1% (73/76) in the traditional group and 95.1% (78/82) in the minimally invasive group at last follow-up, showing no significant difference (χ2= 0.012 2, P= 0.912 0). The postoperative ODI and VAS score were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P lt; 0.05); the ODI of the minimally invasive group were significantly better than those of the traditional group at 3 months (t= — 11.941 1, P=0.000 0), and the VAS score of the minimally invasive group was significantly lower than that of the traditional group at 1 day and 3 months (P lt; 0.05); but no significant difference was found in ODI and VAS score between 2 groups at 1 year and last follow-up (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is an effective method to treat lumbar degenerative disease. This procedure is safe and reliable because it has less injury, less blood loss, and milder pain than the traditional open TLIF, and the short-term effectiveness is comparable in 2 procedures.
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.