Prospective evaluation of 1-year outcomes in single-level percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw fixation in the lateral decubitus position following lateral transpsoas interbody fusion

Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Context

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) are 2 popular minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques with unique approach-related complication profiles. Accordingly, patient-specific anatomical factors, such as vascular anatomy or iliac crest height, greatly influence which technique to use. Previous studies comparing these approaches do not account for the inability of XLIF to access the L5-S1 disc space and therefore do not exclude this level in their analysis. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological and clinical outcomes of these techniques in the L1-L5 region.

Methods

A query of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, and SCOPUS) was performed, without time restriction, to identify studies that evaluated outcomes of single-level OLIF and/or XLIF between L1 and L5. Based on heterogeneity, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled estimation of each variable between the groups. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level.

Results

A total of 1,010 patients (408 OLIF, 602 XLIF) were included from 24 published studies. Improvements in disc height (OLIF: 4.2 mm; XLIF: 5.3 mm), lumbar segmental (OLIF: 2.3°; XLIF: 3.1°), and lumbar lordotic angles (OLIF: 5.3°; XLIF: 3.3°) showed no significant difference. The rate of neuropraxia was significantly greater in the XLIF group at 21.2% versus 10.9% in the OLIF group (p<.05). However, the rate of vascular injury was higher in the OLIF cohort at 3.2% (95% CI:1.7-6.0) as compared to 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-1.4) in the XLIF cohort. Improvements in VAS-b (OLIF: 5.6; XLIF: 4.5) and ODI (OLIF: 37.9; XLIF: 25.6) scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF from L1 to L5. XLIF had significantly higher rates of neuropraxia, whereas OLIF had greater rates of vascular injury.

Simultaneous Anterior Posterior Approach for Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Robotic Assistance: Technical Guidelines and Early Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) is traditionally performed in 2 stages: placing the interbody cage in the lateral decubitus position, then placing the percutaneous pedicle screw in the prone position. Performing interbody fusion and posterior fixation simultaneously could improve operative efficiency and clinical outcomes associated with longer operative times. We describe the operative steps and report clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with a simultaneous anterior and posterior approach (SAPA) for LLIF.

METHODS

Patients who underwent SAPA LLIF performed by a single surgeon over 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were analyzed, an operative guideline was created, and a learning curve was constructed using operative times.

RESULTS

SAPA LLIF was performed in 11 patients. Three patients experienced transient postoperative femoral nerve plexopathy with symptoms of ipsilateral hip flexion weakness and/or anterior thigh numbness; there were no other complications in the cohort. Radiographically, patients achieved significant increases in disc height (8.3 mm vs. 13.5 mm, P = 0.002) and foraminal height (20.2 mm vs. 25.3 mm, P = 0.0001). Patients showed significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (52 vs. 27.8, P = 0.002) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (32.6 vs. 39, P = 0.048) and Pain Interference (64.9 vs. 59.6, P = 0.001) at 3 months. A downward trend in operative time was observed for 1-level SAPA LLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPA LLIF is a safe approach for LLIF that results in favorable clinical outcomes. This technique can potentially improve operative efficiency further along the course of a surgeon's learning curve.

Single position lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, a single position lumbar fusion has been described in which both the anterior or lateral interbody fusion as well as posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are performed in a single position.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present and analyze the current evidence for single position lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Prospective or retrospective studies published in English that assessed outcomes of single position lumbar fusion surgery for patients with lumbar degenerative disease, spondylolisthesis, or radiculopathy were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, X-Ray exposure time, and postoperative outcomes including leg numbness or pain, leg weakness, lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two separate meta-analyses were performed. The first compared single position (SP) surgery, both lateral and prone, to dual position or flipped (F) surgery. The second meta-analysis compared lateral single position (LSP) surgery to prone single position (PSP) surgery. Variables were included if (1) they were a mean with a reported standard deviation or (2) if they were a categorical variable. For calculating standard error of the mean, we used sample size, mean, and standard deviation. A random effects model was used. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed with a significance level of <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included for analysis. Three studies were prospective nonrandomized studies, while 18 were retrospective. Seven articles studied lateral single position only, 10 articles compared lateral single position to traditional repositioning surgery, three articles studied prone single position surgery, and one article compared prone single position surgery to traditional repositioning surgery. A detailed review is provided for all 21 articles. Seventeen studies were included for meta-analysis comparing the SP versus F groups, for a total of 942 patients in the SP group and 254 in the F group. Mean operative time was significantly less for the SP group compared with the F group (SP: 127.5±7.9, F: 188.7±15.5, p<.001). Average hospital length of stay was 2.87±0.3 days in the SP group and 6.63±0.6 days in the F group (p<.001). Complication rates did not significantly differ between groups. Pedicle screws placed in the lateral position had a higher rate of complication as compared with those placed in a prone position (L: 10.2±2%, P: 1.6±1%, p=.015). Seventeen studies were included in the LSP versus PSP analysis, including 13 in the LSP group and four in the PSP group, with a total of 785 patients in the LSP group and 85 patients in the PSP group. Operative time and X-Ray exposure was significantly less in the LSP compared with the PSP group (117.1±5.5 minutes vs. 166.9±21.9 minutes, p<.001; 43.7±15.5 minutes vs. 171.0±25.8 minutes, p<.001). Postoperative segmental lordosis was greater in the prone single position group (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery decreases operative times and hospital length of stay, while maintaining similar complication rates and radiographic outcomes. PSP surgery was found to be longer in duration and have increased radiation exposure time compared with LSP, while increasing postoperative segmental lordosis.

Alternatives to Traditional Pedicle Screws for Posterior Fixation of the Degenerative Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Traditional pedicle screws are currently the gold standard to achieve stable 3-column fixation of the degenerative lumbar spine. However, there are cases in which pedicle screw fixation may not be ideal. Due to their starting point lateral to the pars interarticularis, pedicle screws require a relatively wide dissection along with a medialized trajectory directed toward the centrally located neural elements and prevertebral vasculature. In addition, low bone mineral density remains a major risk factor for pedicle screw loosening, pullout, and pseudarthrosis. The purpose of this article is to review the indications, advantages, disadvantages, and complications associated with posterior fixation techniques of the degenerative lumbar spine beyond the traditional pedicle screws.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for 5 methods of posterior spinal fixation, including (1) cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, (2) transfacet screws, (3) translaminar screws, (4) spinous process plates, and (5) fusion mass screws and hooks. Articles that had been published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2020, were considered. Non-English-language articles and studies involving fixation of the cervical or thoracic spine were excluded from our review.

RESULTS

After reviewing over 1,700 articles pertaining to CBT and non-pedicular fixation techniques, a total of 284 articles met our inclusion criteria. CBT and transfacet screws require less-extensive exposure and paraspinal muscle dissection compared with traditional pedicle screws and may therefore reduce blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay. In addition, several methods of non-pedicular fixation such as translaminar and fusion mass screws have trajectories that are directed away from or posterior to the spinal canal, potentially decreasing the risk of neurologic injury. CBT, transfacet, and fusion mass screws can also be used as salvage techniques when traditional pedicle screw constructs fail.

CONCLUSIONS

CBT and non-pedicular fixation may be preferred in certain lumbar degenerative cases, particularly among patients with osteoporosis. Limitations of non-pedicular techniques include their reliance on intact posterior elements and the lack of 3-column fixation of the spine. As a result, transfacet and translaminar screws are infrequently used as the primary method of fixation. CBT, transfacet, and translaminar screws are effective in augmenting interbody fixation and have been shown to significantly improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes compared with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Mini-invasive bilateral transfacet screw fixation with reconstruction of the neural arch for lumbar stenosis: A two centre case series

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Lumbar stenosis and instability frequently coexist. Spinal canal decompression is often combined with fixation of the relevant vertebral segment and can be performed using different techniques and devices, including pedicle screws and interspinous devices and facet screws. The present study evaluates the clinical outcome of laminectomy and single-level fusion using a minimally invasive technique for rigid posterior spinal column fixation with two cross-linked lag screws.

METHODS

The records of patients operated from 2012 to 2016 were retrieved from the computerised medical record database system. Data on age, sex, surgical level, type of deficit and disease were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered pre-operatively and at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 46 consecutive patients were operated between January 2012 to October 2016. One intraoperative complication was reported, and 4 patients experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis postoperatively. Five patients underwent additional surgery. The lumbar and lower limb VAS score, ODI and SF-36 scores showed statistically significant improvement for each score at the first and last follow-up (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw placement with the Facet-Link ® system is feasible and safe but with a relatively high rate of poor articular fusion. This technique can reduce the morbidity of single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and mild instability and improve patient outcome scores. Comparative studies, including randomised controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings.

Robot-assisted Percutaneous Transfacet Screw Fixation Supplementing Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Procedure: Accuracy and Safety Evaluation of This Novel Minimally Invasive Technique

Objectives

Percutaneous transfacet screw fixation (pTSF) is a minimally invasive posterior fixation technique supplementing oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for lumbar spinal disorders. Accurate screw insertion is difficult to achieve and technically demanding under 2‐D fluoroscopy. Recently developed robot‐assisted spinal surgery demonstrated a high level of accuracy of pedicle screw insertion and a low complication rate. No published study has reported this combination technique. The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy and safety properties of the combination of both minimally invasive techniques: robot‐assisted pTSF supplementing the OLIF procedure.

Methods

This was an experimental and prospective study. Selected consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disorders received robot‐assisted pTSF supplementing the OLIF procedure using the TianJi Robot system operated by one senior surgeon from March to October 2018. The accuracy of screw insertion and perioperative screw‐related complications were evaluated. Assessment of the accuracy of screw insertion included intraoperative robotic guidance accuracy and incidence of screw encroachments. Intraoperative robotic guidance accuracy referred to translational and angular deviations of screws, which were assessed by comparing the planned and actual screw trajectories guided by the robot on reconstructed images using TianJi Robot Planning Software. Screw encroachments were evaluated on postoperative CT images and classified by a grading system (A, excellent; B, good; C, poor). Screw‐related complications including intraoperative pin skidding, screw malposition and adjustment, together with postoperative neurological symptoms that correlated with screw malposition were recorded.

Results

Ten patients, with an average age of 60.2 years, were selected and recruited in this study. All cases were degenerative lumbar spinal disorders, out of which there were 6 cases of Meyerding Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Twenty‐four transfacet screws were inserted by robotic assistance. Instrumented levels included nine segments at L_4–5 level and three segments at L_3–4 level. Two patients had both L_4–5 and L_3–4 level fixation. The average surgical time was 3.3 h (SD, 0.8 h). The mean blood loss was 90 mL (SD, 32 mL). Intraoperative guidance accuracy showed 1.09 ± 0.17 mm (ranging from 0.75 to 1.22 mm) translational deviation and 2.17° ± 0.39° (ranging from 1.47° to 2.54°) angular deviation. The gradings of screw encroachment were: 17 screws (71%) with Grade A, 6 screws (25%) with Grade B, and 1 screw (4%) with Grade C. Only one pin skidding occurred intraoperatively and revised subsequently. No postoperative neurological complications were found.

Conclusion

Our preliminary study of robot‐assisted pTSF supplementing the OLIF procedure showed a high level of accuracy for screw insertion and this minimally invasive combination technique was found to be a feasible and safe procedure.

Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.

Percutaneous Lumbar Transfacet Screw Fixation: A Technique Analysis of 176 Screws in 83 Patients With Assessment of Radiographic Accuracy, Hardware Failure, and Complications

Supplemental Digital Content Is Available in the Text.

[Facet Fixation Combined with Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparative Analysis of Clinical Experience and A New Method of Surgical Treatment of Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases]

Background

For the treatment of patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine the technique of pedicle fixation is widespread, when after open decompression channel structure locking screws are introduced into the vertebral body through the back vertebra legs. We first used a fundamentally new way of fixing the rear using the facet-boards Cage «Facet Wedge», when posterior fixation is done by closing the facet joints with minimally invasive, percutaneous method. We have not found data on the clinical efficacy of facet fixation in scientific literature.

Aims

To compare the clinical efficacy of facet fixation combined with interbody fusion in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Materials and Methods

The study included 145 patients who were divided into 2 groups. The study group with long-term observation included patients (n=100) who underwent a new method for lumbar fixation; the method comprises unilateral or bilateral implantation of titanium Cage «facet Wedge» in the joint space facet joint in combination with the anterior, lateral, and transforaminal interbody fusion. Clinical comparison group (n=45) included retrospectively recruited patients who were performed titanium pedicle screw installation after open decompression and interbody fusion posterior lumbar fixation. Dynamic observation and comprehensive evaluation of the treatment clinical results was carried out for 18 months after surgery.

Results

Cage facet installation technology is quite simple, universal for the stabilization of the rear of the complex after interbody fusion from the front, side, and rear access; and does not require the intraoperative application of expensive high-tech equipment. Comparative analysis of the main group showed significantly better results in terms of the duration of the operation [CG 125 (90; 140) min, the CCG 205 (160; 220) min; p=0.01], the volume of blood loss [CG 80 (70; 120) ml, CCG 350 (300; 550) ml; p=0.008], activation time [CG 2 (1; 2) days, 4 CCG (3; 5) days; p=0.02], length of hospitalization [CG 9 (10; 11) days, the CCG 13 (12; 15) days; p=0.03], the level of pain on a visual analog scale [CG 3 (2; 4) mm, CCG 15 (12; 18) mm; p=0.001], quality of life (by index Oswestry) [CG 8 (6; 8) points, the CCG 23 (20; 28) points, p=0.003], and labor rehabilitation [CG 3 (2; 6) months, CCG 9 (6; 12) months; p=0.0001]. The number of postoperative complications in group 1 was 13%, in the 2nd ― 31,1% (p=0,0012). The new method involves fixing the back with considerably less surgical trauma of paravertebral soft tissue that results in early activation of patients, reduction of stay in hospital period, and better functional recovery of patients.

Conclusions

The application of facet fixation combined with interbody fusion in the treatment of patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine allows achieving the best clinical outcomes and fewer postoperative complications during the short and long-term follow-up if compared with the traditional method of transpedicular stabilization. The combination of low-impact and reliability facet fixation techniques for posterior stabilization of the operated segment creates favorable conditions for the restoration of a functional condition of patients, full social and physical rehabilitation.