Application of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined with Bridge‐Locking Cage in Adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Fusion

ObjectiveAdjacent segment disease (ASD) is considered any abnormal process that develops in the mobile segment next to spinal fusion, accompanied by related symptoms. To evaluate the efficacy and complications of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with bridge‐locking fusion on ASD after lumbar fusion.MethodsA total of 35 ASD patients who required re‐operation after lumbar fusion in our hospital from March 2014 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, among which 13 cases (seven males and six females; 62.3 ± 11.3 years old) received the treatment of OLIF + bridge‐locking cage internal fixation (OLIF group), and 22 cases (14 males and eight females; 52.3 ± 17.8 years old) received the treatment of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) + pedicle screw fixation (TLIF group). The comparison of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and length of hospital stay between the two groups of patients was performed using the t‐test. The comparison of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at different time points before and after the operation was performed using analysis of variance for repeated measurement data. The fusion rate and postoperative complications of the two groups of patients were also evaluated.ResultsThe operation time of patients in the OLIF group (55.4 ± 12.4 min) was significantly shorter than that of patients in the TLIF group (94.3 ± 22.9 min) (P < 0.05), the length of stay of patients in the OLIF group (7.4 ± 2.3 day) was significantly shorter than that of patients in the TLIF group (12.4 ± 3.2 day) (P < 0.05); the intraoperative blood loss (62.2 ± 30.1 mL) and postoperative drainage (47.3 ± 22.4 mL) of patients in the OLIF group were significantly less than those of patients in the TLIF group with intraoperative blood loss (363.4 ± 120.2 mL) and postoperative drainage (285.5 ± 57.8 mL) (all Ps < 0.05). Besides, the VAS and ODI scores of the two groups of patients were improved 3 months after the operation and at the last follow‐up (all Ps < 0.05). Three patients in the OLIF group developed complications such as hip flexion weakness and fusion cage sink, with an incidence of 23.1%. Three patients in the TLIF group developed complications including wound infection and intraoperative nerve injury, with an incidence of 22.7%.ConclusionThe combination of OLIF and bridge‐locking cage may be a safe and effective therapy for ASD patients after lumbar fusion operation.     

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.     

Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis with Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Conjunction with Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation via the Wiltse Approach

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in conjunction with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) via the Wiltse approach in treating degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS).MethodsThe article is a retrospective analysis. Twelve patients with DLS who underwent combined OLIF and UPSF between July 2017 and December 2018 were included. The study included 2 male and 10 female patients, with a mean age at the time of the operation of 67.2 ± 9.1 years. The surgical characteristics and complications were evaluated. The clinical and radiological data such as the correction of deformity, coronal and sagittal profile were analyzed.ResultsThe mean follow‐up time of the study was 26.8 ± 1.8 months. At the final follow‐up, all patients who underwent combined OLIF and UPSF achieved statistically significant improvements in coronal Cobb angle (from 19.6° ± 4.8° to 6.9° ± 3.8°, P < 0.01), distance between the C7 plumb line and central sacral vertebral line (from 2.5 ± 1.7 cm to 0.9 ± 0.6 cm, P < 0.01), sagittal vertebral axis (from 4.3 ± 4.3 cm to 1.5 ± 1.0 cm, P = 0.03), lumbar lordosis (from 29.4° ± 8.6° to 40.8° ± 5.8°, P < 0.01), pelvic tilt (from 27.6° ± 10.8° to 18.3° ± 7.0°, P < 0.01), pelvic incidence‐lumbar lordosis mismatch (from 23.3° ± 10.5° to 11.9° ± 8.4°, P < 0.01), and cross‐sectional area of the dural sac (from 87.33 ± 39.41 mm² to 124.70 ± 39.26 mm², P < 0.01). The visual analogue score for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index of all patients significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.01). One case of lumbar plexus injury was found after surgery. During the follow‐up period, one patient had cage subsidence. A fusion rate of 100% and good positioning of the pedicle screws were achieved in all patients at the final follow‐up.ConclusionOLIF in conjunction with UPSF is a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for correcting both coronal and sagittal deformities, as it results in an improved quality of life in patients with DLS.     

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...     

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Revision of Non‐union Following Prior Posterior Surgery: A Case Report

We report the case of a 75‐year‐old lady who presented with a L_2‐3 non‐union 18 months following a L_2‐3 and L_3‐4 posterior decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Halo of the L₂ pedicle screws on imaging was consistent with a non‐union at the L_2‐3 level. An anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach was originally considered. However, due to the high lumbar approach and patient habitus [body mass index (BMI) > 35], a decision was made to approach the L_2‐3 level using an oblique technique. This involved dissection anterior to the psoas muscle to access the L_2‐3 disc space. The psoas, kidney and retroperitoneum were retracted using a Synframe for the oblique trajectory. Removal of the prior trans‐foraminal lumbar interbody fusion cage was performed via the oblique approach and insertion of a revised implant. The operation was completed successfully with no perioperative complications noted. Length of stay was 3 days, with the patient achieving rapid pain relief. In the present report, we report the first case using an oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach for revision of a prior posterior fusion non‐union at the L_2,3 level. The OLIF technique is feasible for revision of a non‐union of upper lumbar levels, with satisfactory fusion achieved with acceptable feasibility.     

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.     

Comparison of Long‐Term Outcomes between the n‐HA/PA66 Cage and the PEEK Cage Used in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Matched‐Pair Case Control Study

ObjectiveThe nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide‐66 (n‐HA/PA66) cage is a novel bioactive nonmetal cage that is now used in some medical centers, while the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage is a typical device that has been widely used for decades with excellent clinical outcomes. This study was performed to compare the long‐term radiographic and clinical outcomes of these two different cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsIn this retrospective and matched‐pair case control study, we included 200 patients who underwent TLIF from January 2010 to December 2014 with a minimum 7‐year follow‐up. One hundred patients who used n‐HA/PA66 cages were matched with 100 patients who used PEEK cages for age, sex, diagnosis, and fusion level. The independent student''s t‐test and Pearson''s chi‐square test were used to compare the two groups regarding radiographic (fusion status, cage subsidence rate, segmental angle [SA], and interbody space height [IH]) and clinical (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], and Visual Analog Scale [VAS] for back and leg) parameters preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow‐up.ResultsThe n‐HA/PA66 and PEEK groups had similar fusion rates of bone inside and outside the cage at the final follow‐up (95.3% vs 91.8%, p = 0.181, 92.4% vs 90.1%, p = 0.435). The cage union ratios exposed to the upper and lower endplates of the n‐HA/PA66 group were significantly larger than those of the PEEK group (p < 0.05). The respective cage subsidence rates in the n‐HA/PA66 and PEEK groups were 10.5% and 17.5% (p = 0.059). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the SA, IH, ODI scores, or VAS scores at any time point. The n‐HA/PA66 group showed high fusion and low subsidence rates during long‐term follow‐up.ConclusionBoth n‐HA/PA66 and PEEK cages can achieve satisfactory long‐term clinical and radiographic outcomes in TLIF. However, the n‐HA/PA66 group showed significantly larger cage union ratios than the PEEK group. Therefore, the results indicated that the n‐HA/PA66 cage is an ideal alternative material comparable to the PEEK cage in TLIF.     

Quadrant单侧固定椎间融合治疗不稳定型腰椎间盘突出症

目的探讨在MastQuadrantTM可扩张管通道系统下单侧固定加Cage治疗腰椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳的临床疗效。方法对31例腰椎间盘突出症伴腰椎不稳患者,采用Quadrant微创下单侧固定加Cage椎间融合术治疗,其中男20例,女11例;年龄34~76岁。术前、术后采用日本骨科学会(Japanese orthopaedic association,JOA)腰背痛评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数(oswestry disability index,ODI)进行评分,根据X线片评价椎间隙高度变化及椎间融合情况。结果 31例患者经14~36个月随访。本组患者腰部及下肢症状完全缓解,术后3 d下地行走,椎间高度无丢失,影像学上椎间融合率100%,临床疗效据日本JOA评分,由术前(7.6±2.5)分上升至末次随访时(25.7±1.4)分,治疗改善率末次为84.46%,ODI评分由术前(55.5±5.2)分下降至末次随访的(10.9±3.0)分。结论 Quadrant微创下单侧固定Cage椎间融合治疗腰椎间盘突出伴腰椎不稳能获得满意疗效。     

Biomechanical Evaluation of the Cross‐link Usage and Position in the Single and Multiple Segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

ObjectivePrevious studies have neither explored the usage of cross‐links nor investigated the optimal position of the cross‐links in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). This study evaluates biomechanical properties of cross‐links in terms of different fixation segments and optimal position in single‐ and multi‐segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion.MethodsTwo finite element (FE) models of instrumented lumbosacral spine with single‐(L4/5) and multi‐segment (L3‐S1) PLIF surgery were simulated. On the basis of the two models, the benefits of the usage of cross‐links were assessed and compared with the status of no application of cross‐links. Moreover, the effects of position of cross‐links on multi‐segment PLIF surgery were studied in Upper, Middle, and Lower positions.ResultsNo significant difference was found in the range of motion (ROM), intersegmental rotational angle (IRA) of adjacent segments, and intradiscal pressure (IDP) regardless of the usage of cross‐links in the single‐segment PLIF surgery, while the cross‐link increased the maximum von Mises stress in the fixation (MSF) under the axial rotation (53.65 MPa vs 41.42 MPa). In the multi‐segment PLIF surgery, the usage of cross‐links showed anti‐rotational advantages indicated by ROM (Without Cross‐link 2.35^o, Upper, 2.24^o; Middle, 2.26^o; Lower, 2.30^o) and IRA (Without Cross‐link 1.19^o, Upper, 1.08^o; Middle, 1.09^o; Lower, 1.13^o). The greatest values of MSF were found in without cross‐link case under the flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation (37.48, 62.61, and 86.73 MPa). The application of cross‐links at the Middle and Lower positions had lower values of MSF (48.79 and 69.62 MPa) under the lateral bending and axial rotation, respectively.ConclusionThe application of cross‐links was not beneficial for the single‐segment PLIF, while it was found highly advantageous for the multi‐segment PLIF. Moreover, the usage of cross‐links at the Middle or Lower positions resulted in a better biomechanical stability.     

Effectiveness and Feasibility of Injectable Escherichia coli‐Derived Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein‐2 for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the Lumbosacral Junction in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Clinical Pilot Study

ObjectiveTo explore the effectiveness and feasibility of injectable Escherichia coli‐derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (injectable E‐rhBMP‐2, a combination of E. coli‐derived recombinant human bone morphogenic protein‐2 and a hydrogel type beta‐tricalcium phosphate carrier) as a bone substitute for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) of the lumbosacral junction in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients.MethodsA prospective single‐institution therapeutic exploratory trial was conducted. Twenty patients (average age: 69.1 years; 19 female and one male; average fusion level: 7.95) diagnosed with ASD with sagittal imbalance who underwent surgical treatment including ALIF at the lumbosacral junction from December 2017 to January 2019 were evaluated. Injectable E‐rhBMP‐2 was prepared by dissolving 3 mg of E. coli‐derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 in 1.5 ml H₂O and mixing in situ with 9 g hydrogel type beta‐tricalcium phosphate. This bone graft substitute was loaded onto a metal ALIF cage and L₅–S₁ ALIF was performed in routine manner. Then posterior column osteotomy with multilevel oblique lumbar interbody fusion or pedicle subtraction osteotomy with accessory rod technique was performed to restore sagittal balance. Patients were followed up for 12 months. CT‐based fusion rates were examined at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Also, clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS] score of the back and leg) were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after surgery. All postoperative adverse events were evaluated for the association with injectable E.BMP‐2.ResultsOf the 20 patients, loss to follow‐up occurred with one patient at 6 months after surgery and one patient at 12 months after surgery, resulting in a total of 18 patients who were available for follow‐up. Six months after surgery, 68.4% patients achieved solid fusion. Twelve months after surgery, 100% fusion rate was achieved. Compared to baseline values, ODI scores improved to 45.8% and 63.7%, VAS (back) improved to 69.2% and 72.8%, and VAS (leg) improved to 49.2% and 64.8%, respectively, at 6 and 12 months after surgery (p < 0.001 for all). Ten cases of adverse events occurred. But no adverse events were associated with injectable E‐rhBMP‐2.ConclusionInjectable E‐rhBMP‐2 will be an effective bone graft substitute when achieving solid interbody fusion in the lumbosacral junction.