三种单纯腰椎椎间融合并双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定后即刻稳定性的比较

背景：椎间融合术按照手术入路主要有前路椎间融合术、后路椎间融合术和椎间孔入路椎间融合术。3种融合术术中切除的结构不同，融合器置入的部位不同，其腰椎即刻稳定性也存在差异。 目的：比较前路椎间融合术、后路椎间融合术、椎间孔入路椎间融合术加用双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定后腰椎即刻稳定性的差异。 设计：对比观察。 材料：腰椎标本来自新鲜小牛15具。 方法：模拟临床手术建立前路椎间融合术、后路椎间融合术、椎间孔入路椎间融合术3种椎间融合术模型，先将所有标本作为正常对照组进行测试，然后将标本随机分为3组，每组5个标本，制成单纯椎间融合组，分别采用3种椎间融合术测试后，在此基础上再附加双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定进行测试。 主要观察指标：脊柱三维运动测试机上测试3种模型加用双侧椎弓根螺钉固定前后腰椎生物力学特性的变化。 结果：行3种单纯椎间融合后，腰椎的稳定性能明显下降，附加了双侧椎弓根螺钉固定后，腰椎的各项稳定性指标均增强，包括扭转力学指标也得到了很大增强，有效增加了腰椎的刚度。椎间孔入路椎间融合术各项稳定性指标都明显优于其他两种方法，说明椎间孔入路椎间融合术的即刻稳定性能在3者中最有优势。后路椎间融合术的刚度明显强于前路椎间融合术，应变和应力也较前路椎间融合术有优势，但是其扭转稳定性却不如前路椎间融合术。 结论：行单纯椎间融合术后，腰椎的稳定性较正常对照组均有明显下降，在加用双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定后能有效地提高其稳定性能。在3种椎间融合术中，椎间孔入路椎间融合术的腰椎即刻稳定性能最优。     

置入椎间融合器行腰椎融合后Cage移位的原因

背景：多数情况下行后路腰椎椎间融合患者发生Cage移位需再次手术翻修,但翻修手术难度大,效果也常不确切。 目的：分析影响后路腰椎椎间融合后Cage移位的相关因素。 方法：回顾性分析中南大学湘雅三医院2004-01/2010-01进行后路腰椎椎间融后发生Cage移位的16例患者及由外院转入的4例同类患者的临床资料,观测病变节段内置入Cage的数目、Cage的置入深度、Cage与椎体终板贴合程度、椎弓根钉系统的稳定性及病变节段椎间隙高度恢复情况等指标。 结果与结论：病变节段使用单枚Cage融合9例,使用双Cage融合11例。Cage置入深度不足者12例,Cage与椎体终板贴合不佳者10例、病变节段椎间隙高度未恢复者8例,椎弓根钉置入位置错误者2例,椎弓根钉螺帽松动者4例。结果说明 Cage的设计、选择、初始置入位置,椎间隙高度的恢复及配合应用椎弓根钉系统的情况可能影响Cage在宿主体内的稳定性。     

两种不同材料椎间融合器治疗腰椎不稳症的应用比较*

背景：碳纤维箱型和钛合金螺纹状椎间融合器是两种材料及形状均不同的椎间融合器,均取得了良好的临床效果。 目的： 应用碳纤维箱型及钛合金螺纹状Cage联合椎弓根内固定系统治疗腰椎不稳症,比较影像学变化及临床症状改善情况。 方法：对59例行后路短节段椎弓根钉系统复位与内固定单节段腰椎不稳症患者进行随访,其中实施碳纤维楔型椎间融合器37例,钛合金螺纹状椎间融合器22例。用M-JOA评分的症状改善率评价患者治疗效果;术前、术后1周及1年摄X射线片及CT,观察椎体间高度、融合节段前凸弧度及植骨融合情况。 结果与结论：术后1周,碳纤维箱型Cage组术后的椎体间高度及腰椎前凸弧度的恢复值与钛合金螺纹状Cage组差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05);术后1年,碳纤维箱型Cage组椎体间高度及腰椎前凸弧度的恢复值高于钛合金螺纹状Cage组(P < 0.01)。两组患者术后1年均获得骨性融合,临床症状缓解良好,下腰痛症状改善率差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。结果表明,应用碳纤维箱型Cage与钛合金螺纹状Cage行椎间融合联合椎弓根内固定系统治疗腰椎不稳症,二者在缓解下腰部疼痛及植骨融合方面效果显著,但碳纤维箱型Cage行椎间融合联合椎弓根内固定系统行后路腰椎融合术可以维持较好的椎体间高度及腰椎前凸弧度。 关键词：椎间融合术;椎间融合器;腰椎不稳症;内固定系统;碳纤维箱型Cage;钛合金螺纹状Cage     

两种椎间融合手术对腰椎退变性疾病术后神经功能恢复的影响

目的探讨椎间孔入路腰椎融合术(TLIF)与后路椎间融合术(PLIF)在腰椎退行性疾病治疗中对患者术后神经功能恢复的影响。方法 224例腰椎退行性疾病患者根据手术方式分为TLIF组(n=98)及PLIF组(n=126),对比2组临床效果、术后神经功能损伤及术后3个月时神经功能JOA评分。结果 2组有效率(TLIF组90.8%,PLIF组89.7%)比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);TLIF组术后神经根损伤发生率5.1%,显著低于PLIF组的19.8%(P0.01);2组术前JOA评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),术后均显著增高(P0.01),术后1周TLIF组显著高于PLIF组(P0.01),术后3个月2组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 TLIF与PLIF在腰椎退行性疾病的外科治疗中均具有良好效果,虽然手术方式不同,但术后远期神经功能恢复情况并无明显区别,应密切结合病人的病情选择合适的手术方式。     

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。     

腰椎间孔入路腰椎体间植骨融合结合椎弓根螺钉置入内固定：能提高退行性病变腰椎的稳定性与植骨融合率吗？

背景：腰椎融合已广泛应用于治疗各种腰椎退行性疾病,然而传统的经后方或后外侧入路融合率较低,并发症较多,影响相邻脊柱节段的稳定性,破坏了脊柱的机械载荷分布。 目的：探讨经腰椎间孔入路行腰椎体间植骨融合结合椎弓根螺钉置入内固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床效果。 方法：68例腰椎退行性疾病患者行腰椎间孔入路腰椎体间植骨融合结合短节段椎弓根螺钉置入内固定,其中峡部裂型腰椎滑脱24例、退变性腰椎滑脱16例、退变性腰椎管狭窄18例和退变性腰椎间盘疾病10例。 结果与结论：所有患者无神经损伤、椎间隙感染和脑脊液漏等并发症,一期愈合。均获得随访,平均随访29个月(10~60个月)。所有病例未发生内置物断裂、松动移位和椎间隙高度丧失等并发症,骨融合率为91%。依据日本JOA疗效评定标准,优35例,良26例,可5例,差2例,总优良率为90%。结果说明基于椎弓根置入内固定的椎间孔入路腰椎体间植骨融合可有效治疗腰椎退行性疾病,近期随访结果满意。 关键词：经腰椎间孔入路;椎间融合;椎弓根固定;腰椎退行性疾病;硬组织植入物     

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。     

后路及单侧椎间孔和前路腰椎椎体间融合并置入椎弓根螺钉后相邻节段的生物力学变化

目的：比较经后路、单侧椎间孔、前路腰椎椎体间融合及附加椎弓根螺钉后相邻节段的力学性能。 方法：新鲜的雄性小牛L1~L5节段脊柱标本15具。随机取5只标本作为正常对照组,在非破坏状况下测试其力学指标后,再将15只标本随机分为3组,按要求制作L4/5前路椭圆形碳纤维Cage 1枚融合（前路腰椎椎体间融合组）、后路长方体碳纤维椎间Cage 2枚融合（后路腰椎椎体间融合组）和侧方椎间钛合金Cage 1枚融合（单侧椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合组）模型。测试完成后,每个标本附加L4/5节段双侧Moss-miamiTM椎弓根螺钉测试。 结果：3种融合方法在附加内固定前后应变和位移都高于正常对照组,强度低于正常对照组（P<0.01）,3组间以单侧椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合组变化最大,后路腰椎椎体间融合组最小（P<0.05）;在内固定前后配对比较,附加内固定后各组应变、位移增加,强度降低（P<0.05）。 结论：3种融合方法在附加内固定前后都有加速上位相邻节段退变的趋势,附加内固定比单纯融合更易导致相邻节段退变,单侧椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合退变趋势更加明显,后路腰椎椎体间融合的趋势相对较小。     

可膨胀椎间融合器治疗腰椎退变性疾病30例回顾性分析☆

摘要：回顾性分析2005-08/2008-02北京大学第一医院骨科收治的应用可膨胀椎间融合器(B-Twin)行后路开放腰椎椎间融合治疗30例,男14例,女16例;年龄28~72岁;椎间融合节段L1/2 1例,L2/3 1例,L3/4 1例,L4/5 14例,L5/S1 13例。单独应用B-Twin 8例(单枚1例,双枚7例),结合椎弓根螺钉22例(单枚17例,双枚5例);直径9.5/ 11.0 mm 28例,直径11.5/13.0 mm 2例。术前、术后及随访时采用JOA评分(29分法)、Oswestry功能障碍指数评分评价患者生活质量改善情况,通过腰椎X射线平片评价融合间隙高度变化及腰椎滑脱纠正情况。30例患者中28例获得随访,平均随访9个月。Oswestry功能障碍指数术后优良率97%,随访优良率100%。JOA评分术后优良率93%,随访优良率96%。融合间隙高度术前占上位椎体的0.29±0.09,术后占上位椎体的0.44±0.09,随访时占上位椎体的0.42±0.09。腰椎滑脱患者中,术前滑脱占上位椎体高度的10%~60%;术后滑脱占上位椎体高度的0%~40%;随访滑脱占上位椎体高度的0%~30%。无神经损伤、感染患者。减压过程中因粘连硬膜撕裂1例,术后融合器陷入终板1例,随访时融合器碎裂1例。提示可膨胀椎间融合器有手术时间短、 创伤小、对神经刺激少等优点,术后及随访效果满意。需注意根据术前及术中测得椎间高度选择匹配的融合器型号;如放置单枚椎间融合器偏椎间隙一侧有碎裂可能,为防止碎裂应充分植骨,并可应用2枚椎间融合器。     

微创与开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床对照研究

目的 回顾性分析微创(MiTLIF)和常规开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)治疗腰椎退变性疾病的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2010年3月至2012年6月四川省人民医院神经外科手术治疗腰椎退变性疾病患者75例,按手术方法,分为MiTLIF组32例,开放TLIF组43例.MiTLIF组均采用可扩张通道(Quadrant)和经皮椎弓根螺钉(Sextant)技术.收集分析比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间和并发症.采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评估临床结果,腰椎动力位X线片和薄层CT扫描重建检查评价椎间融合情况.结果 MiTLIF组的总的手术并发症率为19％ (6/32),开放组21％ (9/43),P=0.12.手术时间在MiTLIF组为(1.5±0.3)h,开放组为(1.6±0.5)h,P=0.56.术中出血量在MiTLIF组为(136.0±43.0) ml,开放组为(292.0±112.0)ml,P＜0.0001.平均住院时间在MiTLIF组为(4.5±2.7)d,开放组为(7.2±4.6)d,P=0.0015.术前与术后腰腿痛VAS评分的平均变化(5.4与5.2,P=0.9).末次随访MiTLIF组椎间融合率为94％(30/32),开放组为98％(42/43),P=0.22.结论 采用MiTLIF技术治疗腰椎退行性疾病可以达到与开放TLIF相同的治疗效果,且出血更少,住院时间更短,严重的手术并发症更低.     

Carbon cage used for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case report

Two cases of patients with lumbar discopathy who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) were described. The authors stress the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of stabilization.     

椎间植骨融合效果与腰椎前柱组织结构及生物力学的关系

背景：腰椎融合后,椎间植骨融合率低,是临床上亟待解决的问题。 目的：阐述椎间植骨融合效果与腰椎前柱的关系,分析其组织结构及生物力学发生改变后对椎体间植骨融合效果的影响。 方法：电子检索CBM/CNKI(2000/2010)和计算机Medline数据库(1995/2010)收录的腰椎椎间植骨融合的相关综述和论文报告,找出并分析其中与前柱结构及生物力学相关的研究进展。 结果与结论：腰椎前柱的完整性及生物力学的稳定性对椎间植骨融合的效果有显著的影响。在腰椎前路间盘切除及腰椎前柱爆裂骨折撑开内固定中,应该着重保护好椎体前柱结构及血运,尽量恢复腰椎前柱结构的完整性及稳定性,维持腰椎正常的生物力学环境,以期达到理想的椎间融合效果。     

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。     

Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis

This study compares the safety and efficacy of posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). Forty DLS patients with Cobb angles of 20–60 degrees were randomized into either the PLF or TLIF treatment group, and were followed up for 2–5 years. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, clinical outcomes, complications and imaging were compared between the two groups. There were significant differences between the PLF and TLIF treatment groups in operative time (187.8 ± 63.5 minutes and 253.2 ± 57.6 minutes, respectively; p = 0.002) and intraoperative blood loss (1166.7 ± 554.1 mL and 1673.7 ± 922.4 mL, respectively; p = 0.048). The occurrence rates of early complications in the two groups were 11.1% and 26.3%. The recovery rates of the lumbar lordotic angle and spinal sagittal balance were significantly different (36.7% versus 62.5% and 44.8% versus 64.1%, respectively). In various domains of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire, the scores for pain and satisfaction with the treatment showed significant differences between PLF and TLIF group (p = 0.033 and p = 0.006, for pain and satisfaction respectively), and the TLIF group showed better outcomes than the PLF group. There were no significant differences in the recovery rates in the Cobb angle and the spinal coronal balance, function, self-image, or mental health scores. Although TLIF increases the surgical trauma and occurrence of complications, it helps to improve lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance and shows better clinical outcomes. For patients without significant loss of lumbar lordosis and with good spinal sagittal balance preoperatively, PLF is still an option.     

Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar degenerative disease

Between March 2003 and September 2007, 170 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disease were studied retrospectively. Eighty patients underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF group) with pedicle screw (PS) fixation, and 82 patients underwent posterolateral fusion (PLF group) with PS fixation. Eight patients were lost to follow-up. The minimum follow-up period in each group was 2.0 years. The mean follow-up period for the PLIF group was 3.6 years, and for the PLF group, the mean follow-up was 3.4 years: there was no significant difference between the two groups for length of follow-up. The Pain Index (PI) improved from 66 to 27 in the PLF group (p < 0.001) and from 69 to 29 in the PLIF group (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). In the PLF group, the preoperative mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was 34.5, which reduced to 14.2 at the final follow-up. In the PLIF group, the mean preoperative ODI was 36.4, which reduced to 16.2 at the final follow-up. There was no significant statistical difference between the two groups for ODI (p > 0.05). Eighty-eight percent (n = 72) of patients in the PLF group and 91% (n = 73) in the PLIF group had radiologically confirmed union, with no significant difference in fusion percentage between the two groups (p > 0.05). Twenty-two of 162 patients (14%) underwent a second operation: 18 (22%) in the PLF group and four (5%) patients in the PLIF group (p < 0.001). The clinical and functional outcomes in both groups were similar, and no significant difference was found in the parameters tested. Both surgical procedures were effective, but patients in the PLF group showed more complications related to hardware biomechanics than patients in the PLIF group (p < 0.001).     

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion at the lumbosacral junction

Due to the obstruction of the iliac crest and the retroperitoneal vessels, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is generally considered contraindicated at the lumbosacral junction (LSJ). In particular the ‘rise’ of the psoas from the vertebral column in the lower lumbar segments has been associated with significant overlap of the lumbar plexus with the vertebral body and exclusion of a safe transpsoas entry. However in selected individuals anatomical variations may help circumvent the difficulties and the anatomical corridor posterior to the lumbar plexus may provide an alternative to the conventional anterior approach. Currently there is a dearth of information in informing the feasibility. We therefore reviewed the records of three patients in whom LLIF was successfully conducted at the LSJ. The patients’ spinopelvic parameters and psoas anatomy were analysed by whole spine standing X-rays and MRI respectively. Intraoperative findings and postoperative outcome were examined. We found that in keeping with published morphometric data, low pelvic incidence (40–50°) appeared associated with ‘low-lying’ iliac crests which had facilitated lateral access to the LSJ in all cases. Patients with scoliosis provided added advantage when the concave side of the curve was utilised for the approach. A very high ‘rising’ psoas was found conducive to a novel posterior surgical corridor. No significant neurovascular sequelae were noted. In conclusion, LLIF can be safely performed at the LSJ in selected cases. To our knowledge this is the first report to describe the possibility of a safe LLIF working zone posterior to the lumbar plexus.     

Double-segment Wilhelm Tell technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in unstable isthmic spondylolisthesis and adjacent segment discopathy.

The Wilhelm Tell technique is a novel instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) procedure using a specially designed composite carbon fibre cage and a single short-threaded cancellous screw that obliquely passes through the upper adjacent vertebral body, the interbody cage itself and through the lower adjacent vertebral body. This single-stage fusion method, which is in principle a combination of the Louis technique and modern cage surgery, is reported to have a lower rate of pseudoarthrosis formation than stand-alone cage techniques. In addition, it eliminates both the surgical trauma of paravertebral muscle retraction and the risk of neural damage by poorly located pedicular screws. This anterior approach allows decompression of neural structures within the anterior part of the spinal canal and the foraminal region. It is the purpose of this case report, to present the successful application of this novel technique in a 32-year-old woman who concurrently suffered from severe instability-related back pain from L4/5 isthmic spondylolisthesis and marked L5/S1 degenerative disc disease.     

Combination Ti/PEEK ALIF cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Early clinical and radiological results

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a common procedure for patients with degenerative pathologies of the lumbar spine. In this study, the clinical and radiological outcomes of a combination titanium/polyetheretherketone (Ti/PEEK) ALIF cages in one, two and three-level surgery were evaluated. Over an 18-month time period, a prospective single surgeon series of 20 implants (15 patients) were included in the study, with minimum 10-months follow-up. From these 15 patients, two were supplemented with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for additional stability. Radiological follow-up with fine cut CT scan at 9–12 months was performed to evaluate early fusion rates, and integration of the Titanium/PEEK cage at the endplate junction. 20 implants were followed for a minimum of 10 months, and a mean of 15 months. A 95% (19/20 implants) fusion rate with no implant related complications was achieved at the mean 15-month postoperative mark. Patients experienced statistically significant improvement in pain and functional outcomes (SF12 and ODI) compared to their pre-operative status. A single patient with a non-union at L5/S1 (smoker) did not experience any improvement in symptoms. A Ti–PEEK cage, with allograft and BMP-2 to achieve interbody fusion is an effective implant for use in anterior lumbar surgery with high fusion rates, no lucency around the titanium endplates at follow-up, and with promising early results.     

Clinical outcomes and considerations of the lumbar interbody fusion technique for lumbar disk disease in adolescents

Purpose

The posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques are commonly used surgical methods for wide indications such as degeneration or trauma. Although they are rarely required for lumbar disk disease in younger patients, there are a few children and adolescents who are indicated for PLIF or TLIF for other reasons, such as congenital severe stenosis with or without lumbar instability that requires wide decompression or severe bony spur that need to be removed. In such cases, different pathophysiology and outcomes are expected compared with adult patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 23 patients who underwent PLIF or TLIF surgery when less than 20 years old. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed during a mean of 36.4 months follow-up period. The indications of lumbar interbody fusion, success of fusion, complications, and visual analog scale (VAS) were analyzed.

Results

Radiographs of all patients taken 6 months after the surgery showed fusion. Clinical outcome was also satisfactory, with improvement of VAS score from 7.7 preoperatively to 2.3 at 6 months after surgery. Only one patient had reoperation due to adjacent segment disease.

Conclusions

For adolescent patients with severe bony spur, massive central disk rupture, or severe spondylolisthesis, lumbar interbody fusion surgery has good surgical outcome with few complications.     

Endoscopy-assisted posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a single segment

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has been routinely performed for the treatment of lumbar segmental lesions. However, traditional PLIF procedures can result in a variety of approach-related morbidities. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of endoscopy-assisted PLIF in lumbar arthrodesis. From July 2005 to May 2007, a total of 56 patients underwent PLIF, including 24 endoscopy-assisted operations (endoscopic group) and 32 traditional open operations (open group). The perioperative data, clinical outcomes and radiographic results were compared. The intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume, intraoperative and postoperative allogeneic blood transfusion volumes, values for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate on postoperative day 3 and postoperative hospitalization days were decreased in the endoscopic group (p < 0.05), while the operative time was longer than that of the open group (p = 0.026). According to the Visual Analog Scale for pain, the postoperative low back pain score in the endoscopic group was lower than that observed in the open group (p < 0.05). In the endoscopic group, the excellent and good outcome rate was 87.5%, the incidence of complications was 8.3%, and the intervertebral fusion rate was 100%. There were no significant differences for these outcomes when compared with the open group (p > 0.05). Endoscopy-assisted PLIF can achieve a clinical efficacy similar to that of traditional open operations while minimizing destruction to adjacent tissues. This technique is safe and is characterized by less bleeding, less tissue trauma, decreased postoperative pain, rapid recovery, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay.