Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has become an increasingly popular method of lumbar arthrodesis. However, there are few published studies comparing the clinical outcomes between unilateral and bilateral instrumented MIS TLIF. Sixty-five patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease were enrolled in this study. Thirty-one patients were randomized to the unilateral group and 34 to the bilateral group. Recorded demographic data included sex, age, preoperative diagnosis, and degenerated segment. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay length, complication rates, and fusion rates were also evaluated. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score data were obtained. All patients were asked to follow-up at 3 and 6 months after surgery, and once every 6 months thereafter. The mean follow-up was 26.6 months (range 18–36 months). The two groups were similar in sex, age, preoperative diagnosis, and operated level. The unilateral group had significantly shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital time than the bilateral group. The average postoperative ODI and VAS scores improved significantly in each group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to ODI and VAS. All patients showed evidence of fusion at 12 months postoperatively. The total fusion rate, screw failure, and general complication rate were not significantly different. Results showed that single-level MIS TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation would be sufficient in the management of preoperatively stable patients with lumbar degenerative disease. It seems that MIS TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation is a better choice for single-level degenerative lumbar spine disease.     

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Direct Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical and Radiological Results

ObjectiveThe use of direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) has gradually increased; however, no studies have directly compared DLIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We compared DLIF and TLIF on the basis of clinical and radiological outcomes.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on the medical records and radiographs of 98 and 81 patients who underwent TLIF and DLIF between January 2011 and December 2012. Clinical outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The preoperative and postoperative disc heights, segmental sagittal/coronal angles, and lumbar lordosis were measured on radiographs. Fusion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed.ResultsDLIF was superior to TLIF regarding its ability to restore disc height, foraminal height, and coronal balance (p<0.001). As the extent of surgical level increased, DLIF displayed significant advantages over TLIF considering the operative time and EBL. However, fusion rates at 12 months post-operation were lower for DLIF (87.8%) than for TLIF (98.1%) (p=0.007). The changes of VAS and ODI between the TLIF and DLIF were not significantly different (p>0.05).ConclusionBoth DLIF and TLIF are less invasive and thus good surgical options for treating degenerative lumber diseases. DLIF has higher potential in increasing neural foramina and correcting coronal balance, and involves a shorter operative time and reduced EBL, in comparison with TLIF. However, DLIF displayed a lower fusion rate than TLIF, and caused complications related to the transpsoas approach.     

经皮椎间孔镜术治疗腰椎间盘突出症合并后 纵韧带骨化的疗效分析

目的 探讨经皮椎间孔镜术治疗腰椎间盘突出伴后纵韧带骨化的方法及疗效。方法 回顾性分析2016年1月至2018年1月收治的14例腰椎间盘 突出伴后纵韧带骨化的临床资料,均采用经皮侧路镜技术进行治疗。术后平均随访时间8.4 个月。术前及术后1 d和1、3、6 个月采用视觉模拟量表 （VAS）评分评估腰腿痛、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估腰椎功能,改良MacNab疗效评分评定临床疗效。结果 14例均顺利完成手术。术后1 d和 1、3、6 个月腰腿痛VAS评分、ODI较术前均明显改善（P<0.05）。术后6个月,改良MacNab临床疗效评价:优11例,良2例,可1例;优良率为 93%（13/14）。结论 经皮椎间孔镜技术可有效治疗腰椎椎间盘突出伴后纵韧带骨化,使神经根得到及时彻底减压及松解,临床效果显著,但须严格 把握手术适应证。     

Coflex棘突间动力重建系统治疗腰椎退变性疾病18例

背景：近年来脊柱非融合技术一直是脊柱外科研究与争论的热点。Coflex棘突间动力重建系统作为腰椎后路非融合器材,国外虽已应用较长时间,但国内尚处于试用阶段。 目的：探讨Coflex棘突间动力重建系统治疗腰椎退变性疾病的适应证,并对其早期临床疗效进行评价。 方法：2008-10/2010-06使用Coflex棘突间动力重建系统治疗腰椎退变性疾病31例,对其中随访超过1年的18例患者临床资料进行分析总结。治疗方式均为后路髓核摘除,椎管减压、Coflex棘突间动力重建系统置入;1例患者术中置入2枚Coflex。治疗前及各次随访时均对患者进行日本骨科学会下腰痛功能量表、中文版Oswestry功能障碍指数量表及目测类比评分法评估,并测量治疗前后、各次随访时腰椎前屈后伸位置入节段及其上下节段活动范围、Colfex上下极板夹角及置入节段椎间隙高度。 结果与结论：患者均获随访,随访时间12~20个月。末次随访时患者日本骨科学会下腰痛功能量表评分、中文版Oswestry功能障碍指数量表评分及目测类比评分均获显著改善;治疗前后置入节段椎间高度及其上下节段椎间活动度差异均无显著性意义(P > 0.05),末次随访时Coflex上下极板夹角在过伸位较中立位显著增大(P < 0.05)。提示Coflex棘突间动力重建系统对腰椎间盘突出症、椎管狭窄及腰椎不稳等腰椎退变性疾病安全有效,在腰椎后伸时能够有效分担载荷,同时对腰椎生理活动影响较小,有利于维护腰椎功能,早期临床疗效肯定。     

单枚融合器行经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合的解剖学观测

背景：有部分学者认为,与经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合技术相关的手术器械是按照西方人体格设计,和国人体格存在一定的差异,甚至融合物难以置入,所以探讨相关的解剖技术就显得很有必要。 目的：测量腰椎椎间孔及与经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合相关的解剖参数。 方法：对14具正常成人尸体脊柱腰段椎间孔宽度、长度、高度进行了观测;对腰椎各结构与后正中矢状面的距离进行了观测。 结果与结论： 结果表明腰段(L1~ L5)椎间孔宽度逐渐变小;L1 ~ L4椎间孔高度逐渐增大,L5略小于L4,L1 ~ L5高度均明显大于其宽度(P < 0.01);L1 ~ L5椎间孔长度逐渐增大(P < 0.05)。L1至L5 椎板峡部宽、下关节突最外侧缘至后正中矢状面距离逐渐增大,其性别间、左右间差异均无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。结果表明国人经椎间孔入路能满足高度9~14 mm单枚椎间融合器斜向置入,单枚椎间融合器置入不会因牵拉硬膜囊和神经根而导致脊髓与神经根损伤。     

单侧椎弓根螺钉置入并椎间融合对邻近椎间盘节段退变的影响

背景：坚强内固定和良好融合存在严重缺陷和不足。目前还未见临床应用单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合椎间cage植骨融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病对邻近节段退变影响的相关报道。 目的：回顾分析单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合椎间cage植骨融合治疗部分腰椎退变性疾病后对固定融合邻近上下节段退变的影响。 方法：2006-03/2009-12对收治的部分腰椎管狭窄症、腰椎失稳及腰椎间盘脱出症患者22例,进行了单侧椎弓根螺钉固定加椎间cage植骨融合,术中不显露对侧。在固定融合后3,6,12,20个月及取出内固定钉棒后3,6个月,随访X射线片及MRI。针对X射线片运用角平分线法测量固定融合邻近上位椎间隙高度变化,MRI测量椎间盘髓核退变情况。 结果与结论：所有病例获得随访,患者椎管狭窄症状及神经根性症状消失,并且在随访期间内没有新的临床症状出现。固定融合前、固定融合后3,6,12,20个月邻近节段上位椎间隙高度分别为(7.420±0.035 4),(7.426 6±0.036 9),(7.453 3±0.036 9),(7.516 6±0.036 9),(7.430 8±0.036 9) mm,结果表明,腰椎单侧固定融合后邻近节段椎间隙高度无明显变化(P > 0.05)。MRI测量结果显示,固定融合邻近上位椎间盘髓核信号在T2加权像无明显退变。提示单侧椎弓根螺钉固定结合椎间融合治疗部分腰椎退变性疾病能有效预防固定融合邻近上下节段退变。     

Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization for lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term efficacy of Coflex dynamic stabilization device in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsThe clinical and imaging data of 73 patients undergoing Coflex dynamic stabilization surgery from July 2008 to June 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had a minimum of 8 years of follow-up. Clinical data were used to assess the clinical efficacy, and radiographic parameters were measured for evaluation of ASD.Results56 Patients were followed up for 107.6 ± 13.3 months. The visual analogue scale of pain (VAS), Owestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association Scores (JOA) improved significantly after surgery. At 6 months after surgery and the last follow-up, lumbar range of motion (ROM) was significantly lower than that before surgery (P < 0.001). ROM was slightly increased at the last follow-up compared with that 6 months after operation (P > 0.05). ROM of adjacent segments increased at 6 months and at the last follow-up compared with that before surgery (P > 0.05). At 6 months after surgery, intervertebral space height (ISH) and intervertebral foramen height (IFH) of implanted segment was significantly higher than that before surgery (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, there was a decrease in ISH and IFH (P > 0.05). During the follow-up period, a total of 11 patients (19.6%) experienced complications and 6 patients (10.7%) underwent secondary surgery.ConclusionCoflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization is effective in the long-term treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, the ISH and IFH of implanted segment could be increased in a short period of time.     

MAST QUADRANT 可扩张管下单侧椎弓根钉置入与椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病**★

背景：腰椎后路椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病，能够恢复椎间隙高度、维持腰椎生理前凸、提供腰椎的即刻稳定性及取得较高的椎间骨性融合率。 目的：验证运用MAST QUADRANT 可扩张管通道微创系统行单侧椎弓根钉置入并椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病的适应证及有效性。 方法：在3.0 cm的微创切口内放置MAST QUADRANT可扩张管，应用单侧椎弓根钉内固定加椎体间融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病患者32例。 结果与结论：患者置入内固过程中未发生硬膜囊撕裂、神经根和大血管等副损伤。随访3个月以上。置入3个月后JOA评分明显高于置入前(P < 0.01)，目测类比评分显著低于置入前(P < 0.01)。X射线片显示椎间隙骨密度均逐渐增加，未发现椎间融合器移位、假关节、内固定松脱或折断等并发症，亦无炎症、过敏等不良反应。     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in hybrid constructs for multi-level lumbar degenerative disc disease

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of hybrid constructs which involve a total disc arthroplasty (TDA) with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus non-hybrid constructs including multi-level TDA, multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterior transpedicular fixation or multi-level stand-alone ALIF as a surgical intervention for degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbar spine. Primary outcomes analysed included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar was undertaken by two separate reviewers and a meta-analysis of the outcomes was performed. Three studies met our search criteria. When comparing hybrid constructs to multi-level TDA or lumbar fusion (LF) improvements in back pain were found with a VAS back pain score reduction of 1.38 (P < 0.00001) postoperatively and a VAS back pain score reduction of 0.99 points (P = 0.0006) at 2-years follow-up. Results so far slightly favour clinically significant improved VAS back pain score outcomes postoperatively and at 2-years follow-up for hybrid constructs in multi-level lumbar DDD of the spine when compared with non-hybrid multi-level LF or TDA. It cannot however be concluded that a hybrid construct is superior to multi-level LF or TDA based on this meta-analysis. The results highlight the need for further prospective studies to delineate best practice in the management of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.     

Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectiveAlthough full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) has been tried as the latest alternative technique to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interobody fusion (MIS-TLIF) since mid-2010, the evidence is still lacking. We compared the clinical outcome and safety of Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to find literature comparing Endo-LIF to MIS-TLIF. The results retrieved were last updated on December 11, 2020. The perioperative outcome included the operation time, blood loss, complication, and hospital stay. The clinical outcomes included Visual analog scale (VAS) of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the radiological outcome included pseudoarthosis rate with 12-month minimum follow-up. ResultsFour retrospective observational studies and one prospective observational study comprising 423 patients (183 Endo-LIF and 241 MIS-TLIF) were included, and the pooled data analysis revealed low heterogeneity between studies in our review. Baseline characteristics including age and sex were not different between the two groups. Operation time was significantly longer in Endo-LIF (mean difference [MD], 23.220 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.669–35.771; p=0.001). However, Endo-LIF resulted in less perioperative blood loss (MD, -144.710 mL; 95% CI, 247.941–41.478; p=0.023). Although VAS back pain at final (MD, -0.120; p=0.586), leg pain within 2 weeks (MD, 0.005; p=0.293), VAS leg pain at final (MD, 0.099; p=0.099), ODI at final (MD, 0.141; p=0.093) were not different, VAS back pain within 2 weeks was more favorable in the Endo-LIF (MD, -1.538; 95% CI, -2.044 to -1.032; p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant group difference in complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.709; p=0.774), hospital stay (MD, -2.399; p=0.151), and pseudoarthrosis rate (RR, 1.284; p=0.736) were found. ConclusionRelative to MIS-TLIF, immediate outcomes were favorable in Endo-LIF in terms of blood loss and immediate VAS back pain, although complication rate, mid-term clinical outcomes, and fusion rate were not different. However, the challenges for Endo-LIF include longer operation time which means a difficult learning curve and limited surgical indication which means patient selection bias. Larger-scale, well-designed study with long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and update the results of this systematic review.     

椎弓根钉置入内固定与两种不同椎间植骨融合治疗退行性下腰椎不稳：同一机构4年27例资料回顾

背景：良好的骨性融合对于椎弓根钉置入内固定治疗脊柱获得长期的稳定性至关重要。腰椎融合的方式很多，从融合的效果来看，目前以椎体间植骨融合最为可靠。 目的：对比椎弓根钉置入内固定治疗退行性下腰椎不稳时采用打压植骨椎间融合与椎间融合器植骨融合的临床效果及放射学结果评价。 方法：27例退行性下腰椎不稳症患者C臂机辅助透视下于定节段的椎弓根分别拧入椎弓根钉。按不同椎间植骨融合方法，将患者分为2组，16例打压植骨椎间融合，11例椎间融合器植骨融合。测量椎间隙高度后选用大小合宜的两个椎间融合器，把椎板及棘突骨块塞入融合器内腔并植入椎间隙。所有患者置入前、后均行X射线平片及CT检查。 结果与结论：所有病例随访16 ~25个月，平均19个月。2组患者原有的腰背疼痛及神经症状明显改善：融合器组优良率为91.3%，自体骨组为89.4%，两组间差异无显著性意义。置入后1年融合器组的融合率为87.5%，自体骨组为90.9%，两组间差异无显著性意义；最终随访时椎间隙高度融合器组高于自体骨组，提示椎弓根钉内固定的组织相容性良好，配合自体骨打压植骨治疗后椎间隙高度虽有一定程度丢失，但融合率和临床优良率与置入椎间植骨融合器差异无显著性意义。     

Direct pars repair surgery using two different surgical methods : pedicle screw with universal hook system and direct pars screw fixation in symptomatic lumbar spondylosis patients

Objective

The authors performed a retrospective study to assess the clinical and radiological outcome in symptomatic lumbar spondylolysis patients who underwent a direct pars repair surgery using two different surgical methods; pedicle screw with universal hook system (PSUH) and direct pars screw fixation (DPSF), and compared the results between two different treated groups.

Methods

Forty-seven consecutive patients (PSUH; 23, DPSF; 15) with symptomatic lumbar spondylolysis who underwent a direct pars repair surgery were included. The average follow-up period was 37 months in the PSUH group, and 28 months in the DPSF group. The clinical outcome was measured using visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). The length of operation time, the amount of blood loss, the duration of hospital stay, surgical complications, and fusion status were also assessed.

Results

When compared to the DPSF group, the average preoperative VAS and ODI score of the PSUH group were less decreased at the last follow-up; (the PSUH group; back VAS : 4.9 vs. 3.0, leg VAS : 6.8 vs. 2.2, ODI : 50.6% vs. 24.6%, the DPSF group; back VAS : 5.7 vs. 1.1, leg VAS : 6.1 vs. 1.2, ODI : 57.4% vs. 18.2%). The average operation time was 174.9 minutes in the PSUH group, and 141.7 minutes in the DPSF group. The average blood loss during operation was 468.8 cc in the PSUH group, and 298.8 cc in the DPSF group. The average hospital stay after operation was 8.9 days in the PSUH group, and 7 days in the DPSF group. In the PSUH group, there was one case of a screw misplacement requiring revision surgery. In the DPSF group, one patient suffered from transient leg pain. The successful bone fusion rate was 78.3% in the PSUH group, and 93.3% in the DPSF group.

Conclusion

The present study suggests that the technique using direct pars screw would be more effective than the method using pedicle screw with lamina hook system, in terms of decreased operation time, amount of blood loss, hospital stay, and increased fusion success rate, as well as better clinical outcome.     

Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Result of Degenerative Spinal Stenosis Treated with Interspinous U (Coflex?)

Objective

Clinical and radiological results of posterior dynamic stabilization using interspinous U (ISU, Coflex™, Paradigm Spine Inc.®, NY, USA) were analyzed in comparison with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted for a consecutive series of 61 patients with degenerative LSS between May 2003 and December 2005. We included only the patients completed minimum 24 months follow up evaluation. Among them, 30 patients were treated with implantation of ISU after decompressive laminectomy (Group ISU) and 31 patients were treated with wide decompressive laminectomy and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF; Group PLIF). We evaluated visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI), disc height ratio disc height (DH), disc height/vertebral body length ×100), static vertebral slip (VS) and depth of maximal radiolucent gap between ISU and spinous process) in preoperative, immediate postoperative and last follow up.

Results

The mean age of group ISU (66.2 ± 6.7 years) was 6.2 years older than the mean age of group PLIF (60.4 ± 8.1 years; p = 0.003 ). In both groups, clinical measures improved significantly than preoperative values (p < 0.001). Operation time and blood loss was significantly shorter and lower in group ISU than group PLIF (p < 0.001). In group ISU, the DH increased transiently in immediate postoperative period (15.7 ± 4.5% → 18.6 ± 5.9%), however decreased significantly in last follow up (13.8 ± 6.6%, p = 0.027). Vertebral slip (VS) of spondylolisthesis in group ISU increased during postoperative follow-up (2.3 ± 3.3 → 8.7 ± 6.2, p = 0.040). Meanwhile, the postoperatively improved DH and VS was maintained in group PLIF in last follow up.

Conclusion

According to our result, implantation of ISU after decompressive laminectomy in degenerative LSS is less invasive and provides similar clinical outcome in comparison with the instrumented fusion. However, the device has only transient effect on the postoperative restoration of disc height and reduction of slip in spondylolisthesis. Therefore, in the biomechanical standpoint, it is hard to expect that use of Interspinous U in decompressive laminectomy for degenerative LSS had long term beneficial effect.     

Evaluation of outcomes of discectomy with a dynamic neutralization system in treatment of lumbar disk herniation

ObjectiveThe study aimed to explore the clinical outcomes of discectomy with dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for single-segmental lumbar disk herniation (LDH) versus simple discectomy.MethodsThe eligible patients with single-segmental LDH were randomly divided into the discectomy with Dynesys group (group A) and the simple discectomy group (group B). The Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog score (VAS), radiological results of intervertebral height and range of motion (ROM) of the treated segment were evaluated pre- and post-operatively in both groups. Operation duration and blood loss were recorded. Complications, reoperation, and mortality were also assessed. All patients received a 2-year follow-up.Results123 (96.1%) participants completed the follow-up. The operation duration and blood loss of group B were significantly lower than those of group A (p < 0.05). After operation, ODI and VAS were improved significantly in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups immediately after surgery. But a rising trend was found in ODI and VAS of group B, especially after the 1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). X-rays showed a continuing loss of intervertebral height of the treated segment in group B, while it was preserved in group A (p < 0.05). ROM of the treated segment was also maintained stable in group A.ConclusionDiscectomy with Dynesys is safe and effective for LDH treatment.     

Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without reduction: A comparative study

This retrospective study aimed to compare the patient-reported outcomes and radiographic assessment of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis with reduction versus in situ fusion. Patients receiving MI-TLIF with reduction were assigned as Group A, and those without reduction were assigned as Group B. Radiographic fusion was assessed using Bridwell’s grading criteria. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcomes including visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scale and improvement rate were analyzed. There were 41 patients in Group A and 37 patients in Group B. The mean follow-up was 30.78 ± 14.15 months in Group A and 28.95 ± 10.75 months in Group B (p = 0.525). There were no significant differences in hospital stay (p = 0.261), estimated blood loss (p = 0.639), blood transfusion (p = 0.336), operation time (p = 0.762) and complications (p = 1.00) between the two groups. Radiographic fusion rate was 92.68% (38/41) in Group A, and 81.08% (30/37) in Group B (p = 0.110). Significant differences were observed in either 3-month or last follow-up JOA, VAS, and ODI compared with preoperative JOA, VAS, and ODI, respectively (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in JOA, VAS, and ODI between the two groups whenever preoperatively, or 3-month postoperatively, or at the last follow-up (p > 0.05). According to MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 85.37% in Group A and 86.49% in Group B (p = 0.983). MI-TLIF is an effective and satisfactory surgical technique to manage degenerative spondylolisthesis regardless of reduction or not, so routine reduction may not be a requirement in MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis.     

Is it sufficient to treat adult lumbar spinal deformity using anterior lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation?

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been performed for lumbar spinal restoration and stabilization without extensive paraspinal muscle damage or massive bleeding. The authors retrospectively investigated surgical results of multilevel ALIF followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) in adult lumbar spinal deformity (ALSD). This study included 28 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal deformity, who underwent selective multilevel ALIF and PPSF between January 2013 and August 2016 at our hospital. Standing X-rays were performed and coronal Cobb angle (CCA) of scoliosis, sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS) were measured. Pain and functional assessment were performed using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back pain and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. CCA, SVA and LL were significantly improved immediately after surgery and relatively well maintained until the last follow-up. After surgery, PT was significantly decreased and SS was increased, respectively. However, cases with SVA > 95 mm or PT > 30° showed a loss of correction in sagittal balance parameters to a greater extent at the last follow-up compared to the group of patients with minor sagittal imbalance. VAS scores for back and radicular pain, and ODI score were significantly decreased at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). Multilevel ALIF with PPSF yielded favorable clinical and radiological outcomes in coronal and sagittal balance without severe surgical mortality or morbidity in patients with ALSD. However, correction loss in sagittal balance was observed in cases with SVA > 95 mm or PT > 30˚.     

高位腰椎间盘突出症前后路植骨结合金属植入物内固定治疗效果的对比☆

目的：对比观察高位腰椎间盘突出症患者行前后路植骨结合金属植入物内固定治疗效果的比较。 方法：选择2002-09/2006-09中南大学湘雅二医院脊柱外科收治的高位腰椎间盘突出症患者33例,男20例,女13例;年龄34~61岁,平均52.5岁。全部为单一间隙椎间盘突出,其中T12~L1突出1例,L1/2突出6例,L2/3突出10例,L3/4突出16例。33例患者根据手术入路不同分为2组：后路组(n=18)：行后路双侧小关节切除自体小关节骨质及自体髂骨或异体人工骨椎间植骨及椎弓根钉内固定(经后方椎板切除入路);前路组(n=15)：行前路椎间盘切除植骨及钛板内固定(经侧前方入路)。比较两组患者的临床治疗基本情况,应用JOA 评分评价患者金属内固定材料植入前后及随访时的神经功能,总结并发症,观察植骨融合情况。 结果：33例患者均获得随访,随访时间18~48(40.5±3.0)个月,在内固定时间及金属材料植入过程中出血量计算经后方椎板切除入路优于前外侧入路,但在临床症状改善率以及神经损伤发生率方面两种方式没有显著性差异。后路组植入中2例硬脊膜撕裂,1例椎弓根螺钉位置偏斜,JOA评分由内固定前(12.84±2.59)分提高到随访时的(25.63±3.06)分,优良率为88%,随访时骨性融合率为94%;前路组植入中1例硬脊膜破裂,1例植入后单侧神经根麻痹,1例植入后出现难制性呃逆,JOA评分由内固定前(11.96±2.14)分提高到随访时的(24.92±3.91)分,优良率为84%,随访时骨性融合率93%。 结论：前路或后路手术治疗高位腰椎间盘突出症均可获得良好的临床疗效,可根据术者的熟练程度选择术式,同时应进行内固定融合。     

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Single Interbody Cage and a Tubular Retraction System : Technical Tips, and Perioperative, Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes

Objective

A minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has recently been introduced. However, MIS TLIF is a technically challenging procedure. The authors performed retrospective analysis about MIS TLIF using a single interbody cage.

Methods

Twenty-eight consecutive patients were treated by MIS TLIF. Of these 28 patients, 20 patients were included in this retrospective study. Perioperative, clinical, and radiologic outcomes were assessed. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scores (VAS). Fusion rates and cross-sections of operated spinal canals were assessed by CT.

Results

Twelve patients underwent MIS TLIF at one segment and 8 patients at two segments (L3/4: 4, L4/5: 17, L5/S1: 7). Operation time for a single segment was 131.7 min and for two segment was 201.4 min, and corresponding blood losses were 208.3 mL and 481.2 mL, respectively. ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved at 6 months postop (ODI from 30.32 to 15. 54, VAS from 7.80 to 2.20, p = 0.001). Twenty-two segments (78.6%) achieved grade I fusion, 4 segments (14.3%) achieved grade II, 2 segments (7.1%) achieved grade III and 0 segments achieved grade IV at 12 months. Postoperatively at 12 months, spinal canal cross sectional areas at disc spaces significantly increased from 157.5 to 294.3 mm² (p = 0.012).

Conclusion

MIS TLIF achieved good clinical outcomes and high fusion rates. Our findings show that MIS TLIF performed with a single interbody cage and a tubular retractor system can be used as a standard MIS TLIF technique.     

椎弓根螺钉置入内固定联合自体颗粒骨移植治疗退行性腰椎病变

背景：植骨材料来源、形态及植骨方式对腰椎融合的影响目前仍有争议。自体颗粒骨打压植骨作为一种新的植骨方式,具一定的优点,但目前在腰椎融合的临床应用报道不多。 目的：探讨后路椎弓根螺钉置入内固定联合自体颗粒骨打压移植治疗退行性腰椎疾患的临床可行性。 方法：纳入接受后路腰椎融合治疗的退行性腰椎疾病患者21例(28个节段),其中腰椎间盘突出合并节段性不稳定7例,腰椎间盘突出合并椎管狭窄6例,退变性腰椎不稳8例。对21例(28个节段)退行性腰椎疾病患者行后路自体颗粒骨打压植骨联合椎弓根螺钉置入内固定治疗。根据植骨前后X射线片评价植骨融合率,采用腰腿痛VAS目测评分法、ODI评分法及标准Macnab疗效评价临床症状改善情况。 结果与结论: 全部患者随访12个月以上,3~5个月后可见骨融合征象,无高度及复位丢失、螺钉断裂等现象,患者腰腿痛等症状均有不同程度缓解。末次随访VAS目测类比评分、ODI评分均较术前明显改善(P < 0.01),脊柱融合率为95%。1例患者术后6 d CT检查示椎管内小骨粒压迫神经;1例术后第5天出院后伤口浅表软组织感染。采用Macnab标准评价临床结果：优10例,良9例,差2例,优良率91%。说明后路自体颗粒骨打压移植联合椎弓根螺钉置入内固定治疗退行性腰椎疾患短期临床效果良好,植骨融合率高,手术并发症少。 关键词: 自体颗粒骨; 打压植骨; 椎体间融合;椎弓根螺钉;内固定;硬组织植入物     

Anterior lumbar interbody surgery for spondylosis results from a classically-trained neurosurgeon

Anterior lumbar surgery for degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a relatively novel technique that can prevent damage to posterior osseous, muscular and ligamentous spinal elements. This study reports the outcomes and complications in 286 patients who underwent fusion – with artificial disc implants or combined fusion and artificial disc implants – by a single-operator neurosurgeon, with up to 24 months of follow-up. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF36) and prospective log of adverse events were used to assess the clinical outcome. Radiographic assessments of implant position and bony fusion were analysed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. Irrespective of pre-surgical symptoms (back pain alone or back and leg pain combined), workers’ compensation status and type of surgical implant, clinically significant improvements in VAS, ODI and SF36 were primarily observed at 3 and/or 6 month follow-up, and improvements were maintained at 24 months after surgery. A 94% fusion rate was obtained; the overall complication was 9.8% which included 3.5% with vascular complications. The anterior lumbar approach can be used for treating DDD for both back pain and back and leg pain with low complication rates. With appropriate training, single-operator neurosurgeons can safely perform these surgeries.