Endoscopy-assisted posterior lumbar interbody fusion in a single segment

Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The fusion rate, clinical efficacy, and complications of minimally invasive fusion surgery and open fusion surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease are still unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WANFANG databases.

RESULTS

This study included 38 retrospective studies involving 3097 patients. Five intervention modalities were considered: unilateral biportal endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF), percutaneous endoscopic-lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF), minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Quality assessment indicated that each study met acceptable quality standards. PE-LIF demonstrated reduced low back pain (Odds Ratio = 0.50, Confidence Interval: 0.38-0.65) and lower complication rate (Odds Ratio = 0.46, Confidence Interval: 0.25-0.87) compared to PLIF. However, in indirect comparisons, PE-LIF showed the lowest fusion rates, with the ranking as follows: UBE-LIF (83.2%) > MIS-TLIF (59.6%) > TLIF (44.3%) > PLIF (39.8%) > PE-LIF (23.1%). With respect to low back pain relief, PE-LIF yielded the best results, with the order of relief as follows: PE-LIF (96.4%) > MIS-TLIF (64.8%) > UBE-LIF (62.6%) > TLIF (23.0%) > PLIF (3.2%). Global and local consistency tests showed satisfactory results, and heterogeneity tests indicated good stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional open surgery, minimally invasive fusion surgery offered better scores for low back pain and Oswestry Disability Index, lower complication rates, reduced bleeding, and shorter hospital stays. However, minimally invasive fusion surgery did not show a significant advantage in terms of fusion rate and had a longer operative time.

Comparison Between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Middle-Aged and Elderly Patients with Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation

Objective

To evaluate the early clinical effect of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in the treatment of middle-aged and elderly patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation accompanied by lumbar instability.

Methods

From January 2019 to June 2020, a total of 82 consecutive patients were categorised into PE-TLIF group and MIS-TLIF group based on different surgical methods. The visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, perioperative objective serological index, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, time to back to work or normal life, and Modified MacNab score were used as the evaluation indexes. The differences between the two groups were analyzed and the clinical effects were compared.

Results

The VAS back pain of PE-TLIF group was decreased compared to that of MIS-TLIF group in the postoperative 1 week and 1 month. The operative time in PE-TLIF group was obviously longer than that in MIS-TLIF group. The hospital stay was significantly shorter in PE-TLIF group than that in MIS-TLIF group. More intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were recorded in MIS-TLIF group. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PE-TLIF surgery was associated with a shorter time to ambulation after surgery and a shorter time to back to work or normal life. Significant statistical differences were observed in IL-6, CRP, and CK on postoperative 3 days between the two groups.

Conclusion

For middle-aged and elderly patients, PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF surgery both have obvious clinical efficacy and safety. However, with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter recovery time and less injury to the patients, people undergoing PE-TLIF surgery can return to work or normal life faster. It is speculated that PE-TLIF has a higher incidence of complications and recurrence rate than that MIS-TLIF. PE-TLIF may be a better choice for middle-aged and elderly patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation.

"Pin Method" for Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a cage can have a similar fusion rate as minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or open lumbar interbody fusion. Direct visual control during cage insertion is the key to prevent neural structure incarceration in endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. Creating a track with any kind of retractor or cannula for cage insertion under fluoroscopic guidance is not safe enough, because the retractor and cannula can create many blind spots and can displace during cage insertion.

METHOD

 The pin method utilizes two flexible metallic guide pins inserted from the skin incision through the annulotomy site into the disk space until the anterior longitudinal ligament is reached under direct endoscopic monitoring. The two guide pins could be oriented parallel or perpendicular or even reduce to one or increase to many as needed to serve as a sliding track and a see-through barrier to prevent neural incarceration.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

 Two cases of L4/L5 grade 2 spondylolisthesis with neurogenic claudication were treated with endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with 1-year follow-up, and the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D, %) score, and modified Macnab score all improved greatly in both. The author developed an original, cheap, accessible, and safe method called the "pin method," which can be used in both full-endoscopic and biportal surgery and can apply to various approaches and has no limitation on the size and shape of the cage.

Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.

Full Endoscopic Lumbar Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in DDD Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: A Latest Technique

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion has long been used in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Lumbar spinal interbody fusion surgery traditionally is an open surgical technique. Although lumbar spinal interbody fusions using endoscopy have been reported, the endoscope was used partially for the interbody fusion. We are reporting a case where lumbar interbody fusion with discectomy was entirely done through direct visualization with the endoscope.

METHODS

We report a case of a 55-year-old woman who underwent the transforaminal percutaneous full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion technique (FELTIF) under continuous and direct visualization at the L5-S1 level. To facilitate the interbody fusion, a foraminoplasty with complete resection of the superior articular process (SAP) and a partial pediculectomy of the S1 pedicle was performed. End plate sparing decortication techniques were used under direct video endoscopic visualization. The cage and bone graft insertion occurred through the endoscopic working cannula, thereby protecting the retracted traversing and exiting nerve roots at the surgical level. Posterior supplemental fixation with percutaneous pedicle screws was performed to complete the circumferential fusion.

RESULT

The VAS leg score was reduced to 2 from preoperative score of 7 and the VAS back score reduced 3 from preoperative score of 9. Her neurogenic symptom score improved from 8 before surgery to 1 at the last follow-up. The fusion is assessed by plain radiographs in follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that the insertion of an interbody fusion cage device directly through an endoscopic working cannula was technically feasible. Future research should focus on examining the clinical outcomes of this technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Experience with 2-Year Follow-Up

Objective

Endoscopic surgeries have been attempted in the field of lumbar decompression and fusion surgery in the past decade. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is a new-emerging technique taking advantages of an anatomical (Kambin's triangle) to achieve simultaneous decompression and fusion under endoscopic visualization. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PELIF technique with general anesthesia and neuromonitoring.

Methods

The authors present the details of PELIF technique with general anesthesia and neuromonitoring. The first 7 consecutive patients treated with minimum of 2 year's follow-up were included. Clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the Short Form-36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36) in the immediate preoperative period and during the follow-up period.

Results

All patients underwent single-level PELIF surgery successfully and without conversion to open surgery. The average age was 56.0±13.0 years. All patients had Grade I degenerative/isthmic spondylolisthesis and 4 patients coexisted with disc herniation. The mean operative time was 167.5±30.9 minutes, and intraoperative blood loss was 70.0±24.5 ml. Postoperative drainage volume was 24.5±18.3 ml. The differences in the VAS scores for low back pain and leg pain between preoperative and follow-up were significant (P<0.05). The SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) improved from 38.83±4.17 to 55.67±2.58 (P<0.001). The SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) improved from 43.83±3.13 to 57.50±5.36 (P=0.001). The ODI score improvement rate was 33.7±3.7 %. All cases demonstrated radiopaque graft in the intervertebral disc space consistent with solid arthrodesis.

Conclusions

PELIF technique seems to be a promising surgical technique for selected appropriate patients, with the minimal invasive advantages in decreased blood, shortage of ambulation time, and hospital stay, compared with MIS-TLIF. Because of limited Kambin's triangle space and the exiting nerve root nearby, PELIF is still a challenging technique. Future advancement and development in instrument and cage design are vital for application and popularization of this technique. Prospective, randomized, controlled studies with large sample size on PELIF technique are still needed to prove its safety, efficacy, and minimal invasive advantages.

Full endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (FELIF): technical note

PURPOSE

Interbody fusion by open discectomy is the usual treatment for degenerative lumbar disease but requires a relatively long recovery period. Prevalent several interbody fusion methods have shown limitations by its own character. Full endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (FELIF) has advantages in direct decompression of pathology with minimal invasive technique. We report novel technique of endoscopic fusion method through full guided with endoscopic view monitoring system.

METHODS

The authors provide an introduction of FELIF technique followed by a description of the technical steps with discussion on its indications and advantages. In particular, tips to shorten operation time, simplify technical steps, and avoid complications are also presented.

CONCLUSIONS

FELIF is a safe and effective interbody fusion option to decompress the lumbar exiting nerve root and ventral side of dura directly with minimal invasive situation. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Outcome of posterior lumbar interbody fusion for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has become the standard in the treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis since improvement of spinal instrumentation However, few published studies have reported long term outcomes of PLIF using a same surgical procedure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a long term outcome of PLIF using a same surgical procedure for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Out of 45 patients who underwent L4-L5 PLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis between 1995 and 2003, 37 patients (16 males and 21 females) were evaluated in this study. Mean age was 61.8 years. The average followup period was 121 months. We evaluated % slip, lordosis at L4/L5, lumbar lordosis, Japanese Orthopedic Association's (JOA) score and adjacent segment degeneration.

RESULTS

The % slip significantly improved from an average of 17.0% before surgery to 9.7% at the last followup. Lordosis at L4/L5 averaged 3.6° before surgery, 8.2° after surgery and 6.9° at the last followup. Although patients experienced some loss of correction at last followup, their lordosis at L4/L5 at last followup still was significantly different from their lordosis at L4/L5 before surgery. Lumbar lordosis did not significantly change. Mean JOA score was 13.4 before surgery and 24.5 at the last followup; mean recovery ratio was 71.2%. Adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 40.5% of patients, almost all of which occurred in the cranial adjacent segment. Three patients (8.1%) required reoperation due to adjacent segment degeneration, at an average of 76 months after their initial surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

With more than 10-year followup after L4-L5 PLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis, the adjacent segment degeneration occurred in 40.5% and reoperation was required in 8.1%.