改良微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术的可行性研究

目的 探讨单侧微创经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术（minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MISTLIF）采用单侧椎弓根螺钉结合对侧经椎板关节突螺钉混合内固定治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病术后不放置引流管的可行性.方法 回顾性分析2009年1月～2011年6月55例单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床资料,前24例（A组）采用双侧切口行MISTLIF手术,双侧置入椎弓根螺钉,并放置引流管;后31例（B组）采用单侧切口置入单侧椎弓根螺钉和对侧经椎板关节突螺钉,不放置引流管.比较2组术中出血量等指标及引流管相关并发症发生情况.结果 A组术中出血量（92.2 ±25.1）ml,术后引流量（44.1±21.0）ml,引流管放置时间（1.1±0.2）d;B组术中出血量（56.3±22.8） ml,明显少于A组（t=5.543,P=0.000）.2组术后3天超声或MRI均未见手术部位血肿或积液.2组伤口感染、血肿压迫等并发症发生情况无统计学差异（P＞0.05）.B组术后1天腰痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）优于A组（t=2.204,P=0.032）,术后下地时间和住院时间均短于A组（t=9.368,P=0.000;t=9.541,P=0.000）.结论 单节段腰椎MIS-TLIF采用椎弓根螺钉结合经椎板关节突螺钉的双侧混合内固定术后不放置引流管是可行的.     

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disorders: Mini-open TLIF and Corrective TLIF

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) as a short fusion is widely accepted among the spine surgeons. However in the long fusion for degenerative kyphoscoliosis, corrective spinal fixation by an open method is thought to be frequently selected. Our objective is to study whether the mini-open TLIF and corrective TLIF contribute to the improvement of the spinal segmental and global alignment. We divided the patients who performed lumbar fixation surgery into three groups. Group 1 (G1) consisted of mini-open TLIF procedures without complication. Group 2 (G2) consisted of corrective TLIF without complication. Group 3 (G3) consisted of corrective TLIF with instrumentation-related complication postoperatively. In all groups, the lumbar lordosis (LL) highly correlated with developing surgical complications. LL significantly changed postoperatively in all groups, but was not corrected in the normal range in G3. There were statistically significant differences in preoperative and postoperative LL and mean difference between the pelvic incidence (PI) and LL between G3 and other groups. The most important thing not to cause the instrumentation-related failure is proper correction of the sagittal balance. In the cases with minimal sagittal imbalance with or without coronal imbalance, short fusion by mini-open TLIF or long fusion by corrective TLIF contributes to good clinical results if the lesion is short or easily correctable. However, if the patients have apparent sagittal imbalance with or without coronal imbalance, we should perform proper correction of the sagittal spinal alignment introducing various technologies.     

TLIF技术治疗腰椎滑脱的疗效分析

目的探讨经椎间孔椎体间融合（transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF）治疗腰椎滑脱的疗效。方法2004年8月至2007年2月应用TLIF技术治疗Ⅰ～Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱患者39例,男25例,女14例;年龄34～65岁,平均53岁。将19例使用cage融合器患者分为A组,20例采用自体骨为B组。采用Nakai评分标准评价治疗效果。通过腰椎侧位片测量术前、术后2周及术后6个月椎体滑移距离、腰椎前凸角、椎间隙高度,判断骨融合情况。结果随访12～28个月。A组优9例,良7例,可3例,优良率为84.21%。B组优10例,良7例,可2例,差1例,优良率为85%。两组间优良率无统计学差异（方差分析,P〉0.05）。椎体滑移距离、腰椎生理前凸角及椎间隙高度术前与术后2周比较,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;术后2周与术后6个月比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。患者术后5～11个月植骨均融合,平均7.3个月。内固定材料无松动、断裂,Cage融合器位置及形态正常。结论TLIF技术治疗腰椎滑脱能够明显缓解患者症状及改善相关功能障碍,提高脊柱的融合率,是治疗腰椎滑脱症的一种理想方法。     

Perioperative Surgical Complications and Learning Curve Associated with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single-Institute Experience

BackgroundAs surgical complications tend to occur more frequently in the beginning stages of a surgeon''s career, knowledge of perioperative complications is important to perform a safe procedure, especially if the surgeon is a novice. We sought to identify and describe perioperative complications and their management in connection with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of our first 124 patients who underwent minimally invasive TLIF. The primary outcome measure was adverse events during the perioperative period, including neurovascular injury, implant-related complications, and wound infection. Pseudarthroses and adjacent segment pathologies were not included in this review. Adverse events that were not specifically related to spinal surgery and did not affect recovery were also excluded.ResultsPerioperative complications occurred in 9% of patients (11/124); including three cases of temporary postoperative neuralgia, two deep wound infections, two pedicle screw misplacements, two cage migrations, one dural tear, and one grafted bone extrusion. No neurologic deficits were reported. Eight complications occurred in the first one-third of the series and only 3 complications occurred in the last two-thirds of the series. Additional surgeries were performed in 6% of patients (7/124); including four reoperations (two for cage migrations, one for a misplaced screw, and one for an extruded graft bone fragment) and three hardware removals (one for a misplaced screw and two for infected cages).ConclusionsWe found perioperative complications occurred more often in the early period of a surgeon''s experience with minimally invasive TLIF. Implant-related complications were common and successfully managed by additional surgeries in this series. We suggest greater caution should be exercised to avoid the potential complications, especially when surgeon is a novice to this procedure.     

Delta椎板间内镜技术与开放经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗单节段腰椎失稳的对比研究

目的 对比Delta椎板间内镜技术(iLESSYS Delta)与开放经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合术(transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,TLIF)治疗单节段腰椎失稳的临床效果.方法 选取本院2018年3月至2021年3月需行手术治疗的单节段腰椎不稳病人80例,采取简单数字表随机...     

经椎间孔入路腰椎体间融合术治疗腰椎不稳症

目的探讨经腰椎间孔入路行腰椎椎体间植骨融合术治疗腰椎不稳症的手术适应证、技术要点及应用价值。方法自2002年2月~2005年3月,对腰椎不稳56例行腰椎后正中入路,经单侧腰椎间孔行椎体间植骨融合,腰椎后方上下椎板间、棘突间、关节突间植骨,以及相应节段椎弓根钉内固定术。结果56例手术切口均一期愈合,无神经损伤、椎间隙感染和脑脊液漏等并发症。52例经6~37个月随访,平均16个月,未发生内置物断裂、松动移位和椎间隙高度丧失,骨融合率为90·38%。依据日本JOA疗效评定标准,优29例,良16例,可3例,差4例,总优良率为86·5%。结论经腰椎间孔入路椎间植骨融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎不稳症,不但技术操作可行,而且能明显降低因侵入椎管而带来的各种可能发生的并发症,是治疗退变性腰椎不稳症的有效手术方式。     

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with L4/5 grade-1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Objectives

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with grade-1 L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the comparative analysis included consecutive patients with grade-1 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent oblique LIF (OLIF, n = 36) or minimally invasive transforaminal LIF (MI-TLIF, n = 45) at the Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January 2016 to August 2017. Patient satisfaction Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), radiographic outcomes including anterior/posterior disc heights (ADH/PDH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, and fusion rate were assessed during a 2-year follow-up. Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and were compared between groups using the independent sample t-test. Categorical data are presented as n (%) and were compared between groups using the Pearson chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Repetitive measurement and analysis of variance was employed in the analysis of ODI, back pain VAS score, and leg pain VAS score. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

The OLIF and MI-TLIF groups comprised 36 patients (age, 52.1 ± 7.2 years; 27 women) and 45 patients (age, 48.4 ± 14.4 years; 24 women), respectively. Satisfaction rates at 2 years post procedure exceeded 90% in both groups. The OLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss (140 ± 36 vs 233 ± 62 mL), lower back pain VAS score (2.42 ± 0.81 vs 3.38 ± 0.47), and ODI score (20.47 ± 2.53 vs 27.31 ± 3.71) at 3 months follow-up (with trends toward lower values at 2 years follow-up), but higher leg pain VAS scores at all postoperative time points than the MI-TLIF group (all p < 0.001). ADH, PDH, FD, and FW improved in both groups post-surgery. At the 2 year follow-up, the OLIF group had a higher rate of Bridwell grade-I fusion (100% vs 88.9%, p = 0.046) and lower incidences of cage subsidence (8.33% vs 46.67%, p < 0.001) and retropulsion (0% vs 6.67%, p = 0.046) than the MI-TLIF group.

Conclusions

In patients with grade-I spondylolisthesis, OLIF was associated with lower blood loss and greater improvements in VAS for back pain and ODI and radiologic outcomes than MI-TLIF. The OLIF is more suitable for these patients with low back pain as the main symptoms are accompanied by mild or no leg symptoms before operation.     

Computed Tomography Evaluation of Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Inserted during Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Long-term Follow-up Results of Screw Violation

BackgroundTo evaluate the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) insertion in degenerative lumbar disease treated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and to analyze risk factors and long-term clinical outcomes of screw violation.MethodsSixty-two consecutive patients (262 screws) were included. Based on postoperative computed tomography (CT) axial images, a PPS that perforated out of the pedicle was classified into a violation group, while screws surrounded by pedicular cortical bone were classified into a correct group. A logistic regression model was used for risk factor analysis of violation. We also observed the long-term clinical outcomes using the Oswestry disability index and visual analog scale.ResultsOf the 262 screws, 14 (5.3%) were considered to be violated (10 medial violations and 4 lateral violations). All violations of S1 and L5 were in the medial direction. In contrast, entire violations of L4 were always lateral and of the 2 violations of L3, one was lateral and the other was medial. There were no cases of superior or inferior violation. The mean pedicle convergence angle (CA) was significantly higher in the violation group (mean ± standard deviation, 27.0° ± 6.2°) than in the correct group (21.7° ± 5.4°). There were no significant differences according to vertebral rotational angle, body mass index, bone mineral density, and surgical timing (learning curve) between the two groups. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that a high CA was a significant risk factor for pedicle wall violation (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in clinical or radiographic results between the two groups in 60 patients who were followed up for more than 1 year and in 40 patients who were followed up for more than 5 years. There were 2 patients who required reoperation to replace a screw due to leg pain.ConclusionsWith PPS insertion during MI-TLIF, the rate of pedicle violation was 5.3% (14/262). An understanding of the anatomical characteristics of each vertebra and the unique structures of the patient is essential to prevent pedicle violations. Even in the violation group, PPS fixation was found to be a safe and useful procedure with successful long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes.     

Effects on Clinical Outcomes of Grafts and Spacers Used in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Critical Review

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a relatively new and popular spinal fusion technique that has proven very useful since its introduction. To date, fusion rates for different combinations of modalities and materials have not been thoroughly compared and assessed. In this review of published reports, 29 papers met criteria for assessing fusion rates for three different interbody spacers and four different combinations of bone grafts and extenders. The spacers included Capstone, polyether ether ketones and Telamon cages, and the grafting materials reviewed were locally harvested bone, iliac crest bone with local, local bone plus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 and a mixture of local and allograft bone. Of these, it was found that only the Capstone cage and locally harvested bone achieved statistically significant higher fusion rates (96.46% ± 2.89% and 97.07% ± 1.94% respectively) than the other modalities and materials studied. Oswestry Disability Index scores and visual pain scales were also examined as indicators of overall improvement after using each spacer and graft; the Telamon cage and local bone mixed with rhBMP‐2 stood out as conferring statistically significant greater improvements according to these two scales. Our findings are that Capstone and locally harvested bone alone are relatively superior in terms of fusion rates.     

微创和开放TLIF治疗单节段腰椎间盘突出症的比较

目的评价即时三维导航下单节段微创经椎间孔椎体融合术（minimallytransforaminallumbarinterbodyfu．sion,mini—TLIF）与开放后路（openposteriortransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusion,open—TLIF）的短期临床疗效比较。方法2011年10月至2012年2月对40例单节段腰椎间盘突出症患者分别采用即时三维导航下mini—TLIF（20例）和open—TLIF（20例）术式进行对比研究。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后住院时间与总住院时间。视觉模拟评分（visualanaloguescale,VAS）和日本骨科协会（Japaneseorthopaedicassociation,JOA）下腰痛评分评价术后伤口疼痛及功能情况。结果4｜D例均获得随访,mini—TLIF组平均手术时间较open—TLIF组长,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）,mini—TLIF组总的住院时间、术后住院的时间较open—TLIF组明显缩短,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）;mini—TLIF组术中出血量明显较open—rrIJIF组减少,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;术后引流量明显较open—TLIF组减少,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）;术后3dmini—THF组腰痛VAS评分的降低更为明显,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）;术后3dmini—TLIF组JOA评分同open—TLIF组比较下降更为明显,差异有统计学意义（P〈O．01）。术前、术后6个月两组腰、腿痛VAS评分、JOA评分比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论即时三维导航下单节段微创TLIF具有术中出血量少、术后引流少、创伤小、住院时间短、短期疗效确切等优点,是一种有效的治疗方法。     

Three‐dimensional High‐definition Exoscope in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

ObjectivesThe operative microscope (OM) has revolutionized the field of modern spine surgery, however, it remains limited by several drawbacks. Recently, the exoscope (EX) system has been designed to assistant spine surgery. It provides a three‐dimensional (3D) high‐definition (HD) operative experience and becomes an alternative to the OM. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, advantages and limitations of EX‐assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (EMIS‐TLIF) and OM‐assisted MIS‐TLIF (OMIS‐TLIF).MethodsThe clinical outcomes were assessed in 47 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) who underwent MIS‐TLIF assisted with the OM or EX between January 2019 and September 2020. A total of 22 were treated with EMIS‐TLIF, and 25 received OMIS‐TLIF. Perioperative parameters (including sex, age, number of fusion levels and body mass index), perioperative parameters (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization stay, and duration of follow‐up), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back pain, VAS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores and clinical outcomes were assessed and compared. Image quality, handling of equipment, ergonomics, 3D glasses and educational usefulness were scored according to a questionnaire.ResultsOperation time in the OMIS‐TLIF group (121.92 ± 16.92 min) was significantly increased compared with that in the EMIS‐TLIF group (111.00 ± 19.87 min) (P < 0.05). The VAS of the back pain and ODI scores in the EMIS‐TLIF group were significantly lower compared with the OMIS‐TLIF group at 1 week postoperatively (P < 0.05). The good‐excellent outcomes rate was 90.91% in the EMIS‐TLIF group and 88.00% in the OMIS‐TLIF group, and there was no significant difference. A total of 44 visits completed the questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire showed that the EX has exhibited advantages regarding handing of equipment, ergonomics and educational usefulness, and comparable image quality as compared with the OM, however, operating surgeons complained uncomfortable sensation when wearing 3D glasses.ConclusionsThe EMIS‐TLIF was a safe and effective procedure in the management of LDD as compared with the OMIS‐LIF. Meanwhile, EMIS‐TLIF might resulted in a short operation time.     

Comparison of Outcomes between Robot‐Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Single‐Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

ObjectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness of robot‐assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis‐TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for the treatment of single‐level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).MethodsThis is a retrospective study. Between April 2018 and April 2020, a total of 61 patients with single‐level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and treated with robot‐assisted OLIF (28 cases, 16 females, 12 males, mean age 50.4 years) or robot‐assisted Mis‐TLIF (33 cases, 18 females, 15 males, mean age 53.6 years) were enrolled and evaluated. All the pedicle screws were implanted percutaneously assisted by the TiRobot system. Surgical data included the operation time, blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay. The clinical and functional outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog scores (VAS) for back and leg pain, complication, and patient''s satisfaction. Radiographic outcomes include pedicle screw accuracy, fusion status, and disc height. These data were collected before surgery, at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively.ResultsThere were no significantly different results in preoperative measurement between the two groups. There was significantly less blood loss (142.4 ± 89.4 vs 291.5 ± 72.3 mL, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (3.2 ± 1.8 vs 4.2 ± 2.5 days, P < 0.01), and longer operative time (164.9 ± 56.0 vs 121.5 ± 48.2 min, P < 0.01) in OLIF group compared with Mis‐TLIF group. The postoperative VAS scores and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved compared with preoperative data (P < 0.05). VAS scores for back pain were significantly lower in OLIF group than Mis‐TLIF group at 1 week (2.8 ± 1.2 vs 3.5 ± 1.6, P < 0.05) and 3 months postoperatively (1.6 ± 1.0 vs 2.1 ± 1.1, P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference at further follow‐ups. ODI score was also significantly lower in OLIF group than Mis‐TLIF group at 3 months postoperatively (22.3 ± 10.0 vs 26.1 ± 12.8, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the proportion of clinically acceptable screws between the two groups (97.3% vs 96.2%, P = 0.90). At 1 year, the OLIF group had a higher interbody fusion rate compared with Mis‐TLIF group (96.0% vs 87%, P < 0.01). Disc height was significantly higher in the OLIF group than Mis‐TLIF group (12.4 ± 3.2 vs 11.2 ± 1.3 mm, P < 0.01). Satisfaction rates at 1 year exceeded 90% in both groups and there was no significant difference (92.6% for OLIF vs 91.2% for Mis‐TLIF, P = 0.263).ConclusionRobot‐assisted OLIF and Mis‐TLIF both have similar good clinical outcomes, but OLIF has the additional benefits of less blood loss, less postoperative hospital stays, higher disc height, and higher fusion rates. Robots are an effective tool for minimally invasive spine surgery.     

Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single‐Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate whether treatment with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis‐TLIF) causes patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) to experience less anxiety and better clinical efficacy than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 86 patients, including 46 male patients and 41 female patients, who suffered from single‐segmental lumbar spinal stenosis in our department between January 2016 and January 2018. They were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 46), for patients who underwent open TLIF surgery, and an experimental group (n = 40), for patients who underwent Mis‐TLIF surgery. All patients were evaluated based on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), hospital anxiety depression scale (HADS), fusion rate, and complications (screw misplacement and loosening, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, and delayed wound healing). Patient characteristics were compared within and between groups.ResultsThe average incision length was 3.64 ± 0.476 cm in the experimental group, which was smaller than that (8.11 ± 2.406 cm) in the control group (P < 0.05). The operation time of the experimental group was a little longer than that of the control group. The intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay in the experimental group were less than those in the control group.The mean preoperative low back pain VAS score was 7.525 ± 1.432 in the experimental group and 7.087 ± 1.799 in the control group (P > 0.05). The low back pain VAS scores on postoperative day 3 and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were 5.000 ± 0.987, 4.075 ± 0.997, 2.150 ± 0.834, and 1.450 ± 0.639 in the experimental group, respectively; these scores were lower than those in the control group (6.870 ± 1.572, P < 0.05; 4.630 ± 1.103, P < 0.05; 2.630 ± 1.103, P < 0.05; and 2.326 ± 1.034, P < 0.05, respectively). There was no obvious difference in the leg pain VAS scores between the two groups at all follow‐up points.The mean preoperative ODI score was 58.700% ± 19.703% in the experimental group and 61.696% ± 17.583% in the control group (P > 0.05). The ODI scores at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 were 25.225% ± 5.554%, 20.150% ± 7.698%, and 16.125% ± 9.565% in the experimental group; these scores were lower than those in the control group (49.130% ± 14.805%, P < 0.05; 34.044% ± 15.148%, P < 0.05; and 29.282% ± 132.567%, P < 0.05, respectively).The mean preoperative HADS score was 14.475 ± 3.113 in the experimental group and 13.391 ± 2.824 in the control group (P > 0.05). However, the mean HADS scores on postoperative day 3 in the experimental group was 8.500 ± 2.000, decreasing obviously compared to the preoperative scores (P < 0.05). The mean postoperative HADS score on postoperative day 3 in the control group was 12.734 ± 1.949, which had not decreased significantly compared to the preoperative score (P > 0.05). The HADS scores in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group on postoperative day 3 (P < 0.05).In the correlation analysis, the incision length was correlated to the HADS scores on postoperative day 3 (r = 0.527, P < 0.05). The HADS scores on postoperative day 3 were positively correlated with the low back pain VAS scores on the same day (r = 0.388, P < 0.05). The HADS scores on postoperative day 3were positively correlated with the ODI scores at 3‐month (r = 0.460, P < 0.05), 6‐month (r = 0.429, P < 0.05), and 12‐month follow up (r = 0.349, P < 0.05).Fusion rates were not significantly different between the two groups. There was no screw misplacement and loosening, infection, or delayed wound healing in either group. The cerebrospinal fluid leakage rate in the control group was higher than that in the experimental group.ConclusionPatients undergoing Mis‐TLIF experience less anxiety and have better outcomes than those who undergo open TLIF. The lower level of anxiety experienced by patients undergoing Mis‐TLIF is positively correlated with postoperative VAS and ODI scores.     

Surgical Management of Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Stand-Alone Interbody Cage for L4-5 Degenerative Disorders: Clinical and Radiographic Findings

Surgical treatment for degenerative spinal disorders is controversial, although lumbar fusion is considered an acceptable option for disabling lower back pain. Patients underwent instrumented minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (mini-ALIF) using a retroperitoneal approach except for requiring multilevel fusions, severe spinal canal stenosis, high-grade spondylolisthesis, and a adjacent segments disorders. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records and radiographs of 142 patients who received mini-ALIF for L4-5 degenerative lumbar disorders between 1998 and 2010. We compared preoperative and postoperative clinical data and radiographic measurements, including the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, disc height (DH), whole lumbar lordosis (WL), and vertebral wedge angle (WA). The mean follow-up period was 76 months. The solid fusion rate was 90.1% (128/142 patients). The average length of hospital stay was 6.9 days (range, 3–21 days). The mean blood loss was 63.7 ml (range, 10–456 ml). The mean operation time was 155.5 min (range, 96–280 min). The postoperative JOA and VAS scores for back and leg pain were improved compared with the preoperative scores. Radiological analysis showed significant postoperative improvements in DH, WL, and WA, and the functional and radiographical outcomes improved significantly after 2 years. The 2.8% complication rate included cases of wound infection, liquorrhea, vertebral body fractures, and a misplaced cage that required revision. Mini-ALIF was found to be associated with improved clinical results and radiographic findings for L4-5 disorders. A retroperitoneal approach might therefore be a valuable treatment option.     

The “TFP” Fusion Technique for Posterior 360° Lumbar Fusion: a Combination of Open Decompression,Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,and Facet Fusion with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation

Because degenerative spondylolithesis is prevalent in the elderly with associated osteoporosis, the rate of failure of pedicle screws is high; this leads to pseudoarthrosis and potentially requires reoperation. The burden of recurrent symptoms and reoperation is sufficiently significant to warrant prevention. We here describe a hybrid technique that involves a combination of a unilateral approach to bilateral decompression via a midline incision, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), contralateral facet fusion, and percutaneously placed pedicle screws without compromising operative time and visualization. This approach is familiar to spine surgeons, adheres to the basic principles of minimally invasive spine surgery technique, minimizes dural and neural injury because of the unilateral TLIF approach, and provides a superior fusion construct because of facet fusion. In this procedure, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis or scoliosis with moderate‐severe canal/foraminal stenosis undergo a midline unilateral TLIF and contralateral facet fusion with closure of the midline incision. Percutaneous pedicle screws are inserted under stereotactic guidance with reduction of the deformity using a pedicle screws construct. Rods are inserted percutaneously to link the pedicle screws. Image intensification is used to confirmed satisfactory screw placement and reduction of the spondylolisthesis.     

Robot‐Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between robot‐assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF) and traditional open TLIF surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsAccording to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 cases with lumbar spondylolisthesis who received surgical treatment from June 2016 to December 2017 in the spinal surgery department of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital were analyzed in this study, including 23 patients who received robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF and 25 patients who received traditional open TLIF surgery. The two groups were compared in terms of pedicle screw accuracy evaluated by Gertzbein‐Robbins classification on postoperative computed tomography (CT), operation time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization, time to independent ambulation, low back pain evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), lumbar function evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), paraspinal muscles atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and complications.ResultsPostoperative CT showed that the rate of Grade A screws in the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group was significantly more than that in the open surgery group (χ ² = 4.698, P = 0.025). Compared with the open surgery group, the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, shorter hospitalization, shorter time to independent ambulation, and lower VAS at 3 days post‐operation (P < 0.05). However, the duration of surgery was longer. The VAS of the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group decreased from 6.9 ± 1.8 at pre‐operation to 2.1 ± 0.8 at post‐operation, 1.8 ± 0.7 at 6‐month follow‐up and 1.6 ± 0.5 at 2‐year follow‐up. The VAS of the open surgery group decreased from 6.5 ± 1.7 at pre‐operation to 3.7 ± 2.1 at post‐operation, 2.1 ± 0.6 at 6‐month follow‐up and 1.9 ± 0.5 at 2‐year follow‐up. The ODI of the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group decreased from 57.8% ± 8.9% at pre‐operation to 18.6% ± 4.7% at post‐operation, 15.7% ± 3.9% at 6‐month follow‐up and 14.6% ± 3.7% at 2‐year follow‐up. The ODI of the open surgery group decreased from 56.9% ± 8.8% at pre‐operation to 20.8% ± 5.1% at post‐operation, 17.3% ± 4.2% at 6‐month follow‐up and 16.5% ± 3.8% at 2‐year follow‐up. Paraspinal muscle cross‐sectional area in 2‐year follow‐up in patients of the open surgery group decreased significantly compared to patients of robotic‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group (P = 0.016).ConclusionIn the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF may lead to more precise pedicle screw placement, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, less postoperative pain, quicker recovery, and less paraspinal muscle atrophy than traditional open surgery.