Utility of Large Diameter Visible Trephine in Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Report

Transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion microscopic safe operating area: a three-dimensional model study based on computed tomography imaging

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic spine lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) is well-regarded within the academic community. However, it presents challenges such as intraoperative disorientation, high rates of nerve damage, a steep learning curve, and prolonged surgical times, often occurring during the creation of the operative channel. Furthermore, the undefined safe operational zones under endoscopy continue to pose risks to surgical safety. We aimed to analyse the anatomical data of Kambin's triangle via CT imaging to define the parameters of the safe operating area for transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TPLIF), providing crucial insights for clinical practice.

METHODS

We selected the L4-L5 intervertebral space. Using three-dimensional (3D), we identified Kambin's triangle and the endocircle within it, and recorded the position of point 'J' on the adjacent facet joint as the centre 'O' of the circle shifts by angle 'β.' The diameter of the inscribed circle 'd,' the abduction angle 'β,' and the distances 'L1' and 'L2' were measured from the trephine's edge to the exiting and traversing nerve roots, respectively.

RESULTS

Using a trephine with a diameter of 8 mm in TPLIF has a significant safety distance. The safe operating area under the TPLIF microscope was also clarified.

CONCLUSIONS

Through CT imaging research, combined with 3D simulation, we identified the anatomical data of the L4-L5 segment Kambin's triangle, to clarify the safe operation area under TPLIF. We propose a simple and easy positioning method and provide a novel surgical technique to establish working channels faster and reduce nerve damage rates. At the same time, according to this method, the Kambin's triangle anatomical data of the patient's lumbar spine diseased segments can be measured through CT 3D reconstruction of the lumbar spine, and individualised preoperative design can be conducted to select the appropriate specifications of visible trephine and supporting tools. This may effectively reduce the learning curve, shorten the time operation time, and improve surgical safety.

Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND

To compare the early clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MPLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

METHODS

A total of 37 patients who underwent PE-PLIF and 58 patients who underwent MPLIF from March 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, and post-operative bedrest time were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of leg pain and low back pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were evaluated and compared before the operation, 3 days after the operation, 1 week after the operation, 1 month after the operation, 6 months after the operation and at the last follow-up. The modified MacNab's criteria were applied at the last follow-up. The fusion rate and surgical-related complications during follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

The average operation time in the PE-PLIF group was highly significant longer than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). The intraoperative blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, and post-operative bedrest time were significantly less in the PE-PLIF group than those in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). There were highly significant differences in VAS scores of leg pain, VAS scores of low back pain, JOA scores, ODI scores at the last follow-up compared with those before the operation in the two groups (P < 0.01). Three days after the operation and 1 week after the operation, the VAS scores for low back pain and ODI were highly significant less in the PE-PLIF group than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). Three days after the operation, the JOA scores were highly significant higher in the PE-PLIF group than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). All patients showed intervertebral fusion at 6 months after the operation. Two patients (5.4%) in the PE-PLIF group experienced complications.

CONCLUSION

Both PE-PLIF and MPLIF surgery were clinically effective and safe for patients with single-segment LDD. PE-PLIF surgery is a promising technique that can be used as an alternative treatment for single-segment LDD.