Minimally invasive lumbar fusion

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study retrospectively compared the early clinical and imaging outcomes of the single-level Meyerding Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using an expandable tubular retractor system under a surgical loupe.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. This study included fifty-five patients, with twenty-eight underwent ULIF and twenty-seven who underwent MI-TLIF at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University from June 2020 to July 2021. Demographic characteristic, surgical parameters, laboratory results, and clinical and imaging outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In our retrospective study, the ULIF group was superior in terms of the mean total blood loss, intraoperative blood loss than MI-TLIF (P < 0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in hidden blood loss between the two groups (P > 0.05). Moreover, the mean operative time was significantly longer than in the ULIF group in the MI-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The mean CK and CRP levels on the first postoperative day were significantly lower in the ULIF group (P < 0.001). All clinical scores improved significantly after the operation in both groups. The VAS back score for pain at two weeks and 1 month postoperatively was significantly lower in the ULIF group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the change in the dural sac cross-sectional area preoperatively or at the final postoperative follow-up. The fusion rate was significantly greater in ULIF at 6 months after the operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to MI-TLIF, the ULIF technique has the advantages of less hemorrhage, less inflammation, and earlier fusion. However, this approach has a limited operation time. However, further clinical outcomes need to be followed up in the longer term.

Comparing OLIF Combined with Lateral Screw Fixation versus Minimally Invasive TLIF for Treating Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

 The present study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with lateral screw fixation and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) for the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

METHODS

 Data regarding clinical and radiologic outcomes for single-level DLS treated using OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation or Mis-TLIF between November 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

 Seventy-five patients with single-level DLS (≥2 years' follow-up) were included and divided into two groups according to the surgical method used: OLIF (n = 33) and Mis-TLIF (n = 42). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the OLIF group than that in the Mis-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in preoperative low back pain (LBP), leg pain (LP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups, although the OLIF group had significantly lower LBP VAS scores at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Additionally, the LP VAS score was significantly lower in the Mis-TLIF group than that in the OLIF group at 1 month postoperatively, and the ODI of the OLIF group at 3 months postoperatively was significantly lower than that of the Mis-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis angles between the two groups, whereas the postoperative surgical segmental lordosis angle and disk height (at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months) in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (18.2% in the OLIF group vs. 11.9% in the Mis-TLIF group; p = 0.520).

CONCLUSION

 OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation yielded better clinical and radiologic outcomes than Mis-TLIF in patients with single-level DLS.

Comparison of mid-term outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

Patients with L4-S1 disease treated with fusion surgery in our department between August 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were categorized into ULIF and MIS-TLIF groups based on the surgical method performed. The preoperative demographic baseline and operation-related indicators of the groups were compared, including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage volume, time to ambulation, and postoperative hospital stay. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was utilized to assess the severity of back pain (VAS-B) and leg pain (VAS-L). The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were employed to evaluate the level of functionality. Bridwell criteria were used to evaluate interbody fusion. The lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), intervertebral disc height (IDH), and segmental lordotic angle (SLA) pre- and post-operatively were compared. The creatine kinase (CK), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels pre- and post-operatively, and the complication rates were compared.

RESULTS

The baseline preoperative demographics of the ULIF (n=35) and MIS-TLIF (n=42) groups did not differ significantly. Compared with MIS-TLIF, ULIF had lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume and shorter time to ambulation and postoperative hospital stay, but longer operative time. The VAS-B, VAS-L, JOA, and ODI scores of both groups significantly improved. The VAS-L at 1 week postoperatively, the VAS-B at 1 week and 1 month postoperatively, and the JOA and ODI scores at 1 month postoperatively were better in the ULIF group. At 1 and 3 days postoperatively, the ULIF group exhibited substantially reduced levels of CRP, CK, and IL-6. The fusion rates did not differ significantly at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years of follow-up. The IDH, SLA, and LLA improved significantly in both groups but no significant differences were observed between the two groups. Complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ULIF and MIS-TLIF are proven to be safe and effective minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques. Both achieve comparable outcomes in terms of interbody fusion rate, long-term pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate. Compared with MIS-TLIF, ULIF has less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage volume, reduced inflammatory reaction, and faster postoperative pain relief and functional improvement.

Reduction-First Technique of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis

The reduction-first technique in unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) lumbar interbody fusion is a novel approach designed to overcome the limitations of conventional UBE fusion for spondylolisthesis. UBE fusion has gained popularity as a minimally invasive procedure, yet its ability to achieve satisfactory vertebral reduction remains limited, particularly in patients with higher-grade spondylolisthesis. This paper introduces a modified technique in which a right-sided pedicle screw is placed prior to cage insertion, facilitating early reduction of spondylolisthesis and improving interbody cage positioning. By addressing both the ipsilateral and contralateral facet joints under endoscopic visualization, the reduction-first technique enhances reduction and disc height restoration while maintaining minimal invasiveness. We present 2 clinical cases in which this technique was successfully applied, resulting in significant improvements in lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical alignment, and clinical outcomes. Immediate postoperative radiographs and follow-up imaging demonstrated improved reduction and solid fusion at 6 months postoperatively. Although long-term outcomes have not yet been determined, this technique shows promise in expanding the indications for UBE fusion, even in patients with higher-grade spondylolisthesis.

O-Arm Navigated MIS-TLIF Avoids Violation and Delays Degeneration of the Supradjacent Facet Joint

OBJECTIVE

O-arm navigated MIS-TLIF is one of the novel surgical techniques for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis, but there still lacks enough evidence regarding intraoperative facet joint violation (FJV) and postoperative facet joint degeneration (FJD). This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes, accuracy of screw placement, and supradjacent FJV between the O-arm navigated MIS-TLIF group (NavMIS-TLIF group) and the open-TLIF group for the treatment of low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis, and further, to investigate the risk factors influencing FJD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of patients with low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis who had received O-Arm navigated MIS-TLIF or open TLIF from May 2018 to May 2023. All the patients were followed up for at least 1 year. The demographic and perioperative data were recorded. The ODI and VAS scores were collected before surgery, 3 months postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. Slip parameters were measured before surgery and at the last follow-up. The screw convergence angle at the upper instrumented vertebra was evaluated based on postoperative CT images. Accuracy of screw placement and supradjacent FJV were assessed after surgery. The FJD was assessed at the final follow-up in comparison to that before surgery.

RESULTS

Each group had 42 patients. VAS back pain of the NavMIS-TLIF group at the 3-month follow-up was lower than that of the open-TLIF group, yet there was no significant difference in ODI and VAS scores between the groups at the final follow-up. Both groups had similar slip reduction results. The clinically accurate rate of screw placement in the NavMIS-TLIF group was 99.4%, significantly higher than 94.0% in the open-TLIF group. At the upper instrumented vertebra, the screw convergence angle of the NavMIS-TLIF group was significantly larger than that of the open-TLIF group. The incidence of FJV in the NavMIS-TLIF group (23.8%) was significantly lower than that in the open-TLIF group (53.6%). There was no significant difference in preoperative FJD between the two groups, while at the last follow-up, the open-TLIF group had more cases of FJD. The screw convergence angle had a negative correlation with FJV and the aggravation of FJD, and FJV was positively associated with the aggravation of FJD. Multivariable logistic regression showed that FJV served as an independent risk factor for the aggravation of FJD.

CONCLUSIONS

O-arm navigated MIS-TLIF has similar clinical outcomes and higher accuracy of screw placement compared to open TLIF. O-arm navigated MIS-TLIF reduces the incidence of FJV significantly, which probably helps to delay FJD.

Visualization in the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: From Tubular to Endoscopic Approaches

The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion remains one of the most common surgical techniques used for spinal arthrodesis. Spine surgery over the last three decades has increasingly emphasized approaches that reduce tissue trauma, iatrogenic injury, and perioperative morbidity. The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach represents an opportunity for surgeons to achieve that aim, with modalities that allow visualization through tubular retractors or spinal endoscopy. In this paper, the authors review the techniques and considerations underlying visualization within both methods, as well as provide summary of a hybrid system incorporating the advantages of both. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion modalities must be selected in accordance with patient factors to achieve optimal outcomes.

Impact of Early Depressive Burden on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate mental health influence on minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Poor mental health has been postulated to indicate inferior patient perceptions of surgical outcomes in spine literature. Few studies have assessed mental health as a dynamic metric throughout the perioperative period.

METHODS

A single-surgeon database was retrospectively searched for patients who underwent primary, elective MIS-TLIF for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. Summative depressive burden (SDB) was defined by the sum of preoperative and 6-week postoperative 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with Lesser Burden (LB, SDB<10) and Greater Burden (GB, SDB≥10) cohorts. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were compared preoperatively, at 6 weeks, and at final postoperative follow-up (11.4±10.9 mo), using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale-back (VAS-B), VAS-leg (VAS-L), and PHQ-9. Improvements at 6-week (∆PROM-6W), final follow-up (∆PROM-FF), and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement were compared.

RESULTS

The GB cohort consisted of 44 of 105 patients. Demographic variations included older age, higher Charlson comorbidity index, increased hypertension prevalence, and private insurance in the LB cohort ( P ≤0.018). The LB cohort demonstrated better baseline and 6-week PROMIS-PF/ODI/VAS-L ( P ≤0.032) and better final PROMIS-PF/ODI/VAS-L/PHQ-9 ( P ≤0.031). Both cohorts improved in all PROMs at 6 weeks and final follow-up ( P ≤0.029), except for PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks in the GB cohort. ∆PROM-6W, ∆PROM-FF, and MCID achievement rate for PHQ-9 were greater in the GB cohort ( P ≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

On average, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis improved in all PROMs by final follow-up. Patients with GB suffered inferior perceptions of physical function, disability, and leg pain. MCID rates in mental health were higher for GB cohort. Surgeons are encouraged to adopt a compassionate understanding of depressive burden and educate the patient on possible consequential postoperative outcomes.

Beyond Pedicle Screw Placement: Future Minimally Invasive Applications of Robotics in Spine Surgery

Advancements in spine surgery have dramatically enhanced minimally invasive techniques, prominently through integrating robotic systems. Although pedicle screw placement remains the most widespread application of this technology, new developments are emerging to create innovative future avenues for these tools. This review explores the promising applications of robotic technology in minimally invasive spinal procedures, ranging from assistance with laminectomies and vertebroplasty to pain management and treatment of spinal tumors. We also discuss the potential for integrating artificial intelligence and augmented reality with robotic systems. If the current trajectory of research and innovation continues, there is promise in creating fully autonomous robotic systems that can revolutionize spine surgery by processing, planning, and performing procedures without heavy reliance on the surgeon.

Comparative Efficacy of 3 Methods of Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases in a Tertiary Public Hospital

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of large-channel endoscope-assisted posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Data of 110 patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine were analyzed retrospectively: 31 patients underwent Endo-PLIF, 36 patients underwent MIS-TLIF, and 43 patients underwent modified TLIF. We compared operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, latent blood loss, intraoperative radiation dose, visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, anterior protrusion angle of the intervertebral space, postoperative ambulatory time, postoperative duration of hospital stay, and complications among the 3 groups. The prevalence of interbody fusion was observed at follow-up.

RESULTS

Operative duration of Endo-PLIF was longer than that of MIS-TLIF and modified TLIF (P < 0.05). In terms of intraoperative blood loss, latent blood loss, and recovery time, Endo-PLIF and MIS-TLIF had clear advantages (P < 0.05). Visual analog scale score and Oswestry Disability Index of the 3 groups were satisfactory, but low back pain of patients in the Endo-PLIF and MIS-TLIF groups was less than that in the modified TLIF group (P < 0.05). In terms of complications and prevalence of interbody fusion, there were no significant differences among the 3 groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

All 3 operative methods had satisfactory efficacy. Endo-PLIF can be employed to treat lumbar degenerative diseases more precisely and in a minimally invasive fashion, but a learning curve and improvement in surgical instruments are needed.

A More Efficient and Safer Improved Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Insertion Technique-Trajectory Dynamic Adjustment Technique, Technical Note, and Clinical Efficacy

OBJECTIVE

Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) technique requires a very precise entry point of the Jamshidi needle, which leads to repeated adjustments, damaging the pedicle and increasing radiation exposure. This study was designed to propose an improved percutaneous pedicle screw fixation technique-trajectory dynamic adjustment (TDA) technique, and evaluate its feasibility and assess the clinical outcomes.

METHOD

A total of 445 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar spinal stenosis associated with instability from June 2017 to May 2022 were included in the retrospective study. They were randomly separated into two groups. Two hundred thirty-one patients underwent TDA technique (TDA group). Two hundred fourteen patients underwent traditional PPSF technique (PPSF group). All patients underwent postoperative CT to assess the accuracy of screw placement, superior facet joint violation (FJV). The evaluated clinical outcomes were needle insertion time, radiation exposure, blood loss, hospital stay, the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain (LBP), and leg pain, lumbar interbody fusion rate, and postoperative complications. The independent-sample t test and paired t-test were used for continuous data. The contingency table and Mann-Whitney U test were used for categorical data.

RESULTS

The time of the insertion in TDA group was significantly lower than that in PPSF group (p < 0.05). Similarly, the fluoroscopy frequency in TDA group was significantly lower than that in PPSF group (p < 0.05). There was no difference in intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay between the two groups (p > 0.05). Overall, there was no significant difference in the proportion of clinically acceptable screws between the two groups (p > 0.05). In addition, the lateral screw misplacement in TDA group was higher. Moreover, FJV rate was significantly lower than that in PPSF group (p < 0.05). In both TDA group and PPSF group, postoperative back and leg pain and the JOA score were significantly improved (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in the pre- and postoperative VAS score for back and leg pain and the JOA score, JOA recovery rate, intervertebral fusion rate, and complications rate between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to traditional PPSF technique, TDA technique is a safer and more effective procedure which has shorter surgical time, lower radiation exposure, and lower facet joint violation rate.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We electronically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Wanfang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases from database establishment to December 2023. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. They also recorded the authors, sample size, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, complication rate, fusion rate, visual analogue scale scores, and Oswestry disability index in each study. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 314 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. The UBE-TLIF group comprised 154 patients, and the Endo-TLIF group comprised 160 patients. UBE-TLIF was superior to Endo-TLIF in terms of the operative time and fusion rate. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, complication rate, visual analogue scale scores, or Oswestry disability index between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Both UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF can achieve satisfactory clinical results with respect to improving low back and leg pain in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. However, UBE-TLIF has the advantages of a shorter operative time and higher fusion rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023495076).

Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) are two minimally invasive lumbar fusion methods that have gained popularity in the past two decades. MIDLIF involves the use of cortical bone trajectory screws, whereas MIS-TLIF uses traditional pedicle screws. However, there is a significant lack of research directly examining the clinical efficacy of these two methods in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases. Hence, the objective of our retrospective study is to assess and contrast the surgical and clinical results of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. The study population comprised 133 patients diagnosed with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease that received treatment using either MIDLIF (n = 65) or MIS-TLIF (n = 68) in our department from January 2017 to January 2019. The fusion rates for MIDLIF were consistently lower than MID-TLIF at all post-operative time periods of follow-up, however, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. The 1-year fusion rates were 81.5% (MIDLIF) and 83.8% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.728), and the 2-year fusion rates were 87.7% (MIDLIF) and 91.2% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.513). The final follow-up fusion rates were 93.8% (MIDLIF) and 95.6% (MIS-TLIF) (P = 0.653). MIDLIF had several advantages over MIS-TLIF, including a shorter operative time (135.2 ± 15.70 vs. 160.1 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.001), decreased intraoperative blood loss (147.9 ± 36.4 vs. 169.5 ± 24.7 mL, P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (10.8 ± 3.1 vs. 12.4 ± 4.1d; P = 0.014). No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of the postoperative day of ambulation, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and lower back pain (P > 0.05). Although not significant (P = 0.707), MIDLIF (13.8%) had fewer overall complications than MIS-TLIF (16.2%). Therefore, compared to MIS-TLIF, MIDLIF provides perioperative benefits while achieving the same outcomes as MIS-TLIF in terms of fusion rate, pain relief, functional improvement, and complication rate.

How to Set Working Cannula in Endoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Morphometric Analysis Based on Computed Tomography

OBJECTIVES

There is a high risk of nerve root injury during endoscopic-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF). This study used computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess the relationship between the exiting nerve root and its surroundings, and the corresponding intervertebral disc. We also measured the approximate position and angle for the placement of the working cannula to reduce the risk of nerve root injury during Endo-TLIF procedures in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at our institution between December 2021 and December 2022. A total of 115 patients suffering from low back pain were recruited for the study. For each participant, three-dimensional (3D) vertebral models of the lumbar segments from L3 to S1 were constructed based on their CT images. The nerve root-disc distance, cannula insertion bypass distance and angle, foraminal height and width, exiting nerve root height, and nerve root-pedicle distance were measured. A paired t-test was used to compare measurements between the left and right sides, while inter- and intraobserver reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

From L3/4 to L5/S1 segments, the ideal cannula insertion distance range was 37.51 ± 4.91-120.38 ± 37.71 mm at L3/4; 42.38 ± 5.29-116.25 ± 27.22 mm at L4/5; and 37.78 ± 4.86-69.26 ± 12.64 mm at L5/S1. The appropriate cannula insertion angle range was 30.86° ± 5.05°-62.59° ± 6.66° at L3/4; 34.30° ± 4.73°-60.88° ± 7.34° at L4/5; and 35.89° ± 4.18°-47.65° ± 7.38° at L5/S1. The height of the intervertebral foramen (IVF) gradually decreased, and the width steadily increased. The exiting nerve root height and the nerve root-pedicle distance slightly decreased caudally.

CONCLUSION

From L3/4 to L5/S1, the range of working cannula insertion distance and angle gradually decreased, and the exiting nerve root height occupying the IVF gradually increased. Our measurement can reduce the risk of nerve root injury caused by inserting the working cannula during Endo-TLIF.

Outcomes of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Treated With Open Versus Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Posterior Spinal Stabilization: A Retrospective Study at a Rural Teaching Hospital in South India

Background Thoracolumbar spine fractures are the most prevalent type of axial skeleton fractures, with approximately two-thirds occurring between T11 and L2. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation has been reported to be an effective treatment for thoracolumbar fractures. Minimally invasive percutaneous pedicle screw fixation yields outcomes comparable to those of the standard open procedure and has the advantages of less stress, bleeding, and pain, as well as rapid postoperative recovery. The main objective of this research was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two surgical approaches (open and percutaneous posterior spinal stabilization), concentrating on nonosteoporotic AO Spine Type A3 thoracolumbar burst fractures between T11 and L2. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective study in our hospital, where cases of thoracolumbar burst fractures meeting the inclusion criteria were chosen retrospectively from April 2022 to March 2023. A total of 54 patients (aged 18-60 years) who underwent spinal stabilization were included in this investigation. The population was divided into two cohorts, with 27 patients in each: Group A underwent open posterior spinal stabilization, and Group B underwent percutaneous posterior spinal stabilization. Data retrieved from medical records were analyzed with at least a six-month follow-up, mainly assessing the demographic data, intraoperative parameters, duration of hospitalization, clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and McGill Pain Questionnaire scores), and radiological outcomes (vertebral wedge angle and correction loss). Results Both groups had a male preponderance. There were statistically meaningful distinctions between both groups regarding intraoperative parameters (blood loss and surgical duration) and primary clinical outcome parameters (Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and McGill Pain Questionnaire scores) in the early phase of the study. However, there were no statistically significant differences concerning radiological parameters (vertebral wedge angle and correction loss) or primary clinical outcome parameters at the last follow-up. Conclusion The treatment modalities (open and percutaneous posterior spinal stabilization surgery) were equally safe and effective. However, the percutaneous group demonstrated significant reductions in the length of the surgical procedure, blood loss during surgery, duration of hospital stay, and immediate postoperative pain scores, all of which could potentially benefit patients.

Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series

Background

Robotic-assisted, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RE-TLIF) is a promising, minimally invasive surgical option for degenerative lumbar spondylosis/spondylolisthesis; however, outcomes data and efficacy are limited, especially in multilevel disease. Here, we present the first reported series of patients that underwent either single or multilevel RE-TLIF.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on 23 consecutive patients who underwent a single level or multilevel RE-TLIF by a single surgeon. Variables included demographics, perioperative results, pain scores, and functional outcome scores.

Results

Eighteen patients (78.3 %) underwent single level RE-TLIF and 5 patients (21.7 %) underwent multilevel RE-TLIF. The median reduction of visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain (LBP) of all subjects was 6 (IQR = 4.5, 6.5) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.565). The median reduction of VAS for leg pain of all subjects 7 (IQR = 6, 8) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.702). Median blood loss was 25 cc (IQR = 25, 25) and 50 cc (IQR = 25, 100) for single and multilevel RE-TLIF, respectively (p = 0.025), whereas median length of stay was 1 (IQR = 1, 1; mean = 1.0 ± 00.18) days and 1 (IQR = 1, 2; mean = 1.4 ± 00.54) days, respectively (p = 0.042). One major complication was observed requiring reoperation for demineralized bone matrix migration resulting in an L5 radiculopathy.

Conclusions

Single and multi-level RE-TLIF appears to be a safe and efficacious approach with comparable outcomes to open and other minimally invasive approaches. Additionally, we observed favorable accuracy in robot-assisted pedicle screw, endoscope, and interbody device placement.

Open Versus Percutaneous Stabilization of Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Large Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Reoperation Rates

BACKGROUND

Thoracolumbar fractures (TLF) requiring surgical intervention can be treated with either open or percutaneous stabilization, each with some distinct risks and benefits. There is insufficient evidence available to support one approach as superior.

METHODS

Patients who underwent spinal fixation for TLF between 2008 and 2020 were reviewed. Patients with one or two levels of fracture treated with either open or percutaneous stabilization were included. Exclusion criteria were more than two levels of fracture, patients requiring corpectomy, stabilization constructs that crossed the cervicothoracic or lumbosacral junction, history of previous thoracolumbar fusion at the same level, spinal neoplasm, anterior or lateral fixation, and spinal infection. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected for all patients.

RESULTS

691 patients (377 open, 314 percutaneous) met the inclusion criteria. Patients in the percutaneous cohort sustained lower estimated blood loss (73 vs 334 ml; p< 0.001) and shorter length of surgery (114 vs. 151 minutes; p< 0.001). No differences were observed in the length of hospital stay or overall reoperation rates. Asymptomatic (7.0% vs 0.8%) and symptomatic (3.5% vs 0.5%) hardware removal was more common with the percutaneous cohort, while the incidence of revision surgery due to hardware failure requiring the extension of the construct (1.9% vs 5.8%) and infection (1.9% vs 6.4%) was greater in the open group.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous stabilization for TLF was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, lower infection rate, higher rates of elective hardware removal, and lower rates of hardware failure requiring extension of the construct compared to open stabilization.

Ultrasonic bone curette-assisted unilateral approach for bilateral decompression with MIS-TLIF for severe lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bilateral decompression with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) assisted by an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC) for treating severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and traditional tool laminectomy decompression MIS-TLIF for treating severe DLSS.

METHODS

The clinical data of 128 patients with single-segment severe DLSS who were admitted between January 2017 and December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 67 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using an ultrasonic bone curette (UBC group), whereas 61 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF using traditional tools (traditional group, control). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate back and lower limb pain before the operation,immediate postoperative, and one week, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Zurich claudication score (ZCQ) were employed to evaluate the improvement in low back and lower limb function. At the last follow-up, the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was utilized to evaluate bone graft fusion.

RESULTS

The decompression time of laminectomy was significantly shorter in the UBC group than in the traditional group (control group), and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less in those in the control group (P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores of the two groups after the operation were significantly improved compared to those before the operation (P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS back scores than the control group immediate postoperative and one week after the operation(P < 0.05). The UBC group had better VAS lower limb scores than the control group immediate postoperative (P < 0.05).The incidence of perioperative complications, hospitalization time, dural sac cross-sectional area (CSA), and dural sac CSA improvement rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS and ODI scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before,three, six months, one year, and two years after surgery (P > 0.05). The ZCQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups before the operation at one week, six months, one year, and two years after the operation (P > 0.05). According to the Bridwell bone graft fusion standard, bone graft fusion did not occur significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

UBC unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF in treating severe DLSS can achieve clinical efficacy as traditional tool unilateral fenestration bilateral decompression MIS-TLIF and reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage. It can also shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the work intensity of the operator, and reduce the degree of low back pain during short-term follow-ups. Therefore, this is a safe and effective surgical method.

Radiological and Clinical Outcomes comparing 2-level MIS Lateral and MIS Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare early postoperative radiological and clinical outcomes between 2-level minimally invasive (MIS) trans-psoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

Fifty three consecutive patients undergoing 2-level lumbar interbody fusion from L3-L5 for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled. Twenty four patients underwent LLIF and 29 underwent TLIF.

RESULTS

Operative time and length of stay were similar between LLIF and TLIF (272.8 ± 82.4 vs 256.1 ± 59.4 minutes; 5.5 ± 2.8 vs 4.7 ± 3.3 days, P > .05), whereas blood loss was lower for LLIF (229.0 ± 125.6 vs 302.4 ± 97.1mls, P = .026). Neurological deficits were more common in LLIF (9 vs 3, P = .025), whereas persistent deficits were rare for both (1 vs 1, P = 1). For both groups, all patient reported outcomes visual analogue scale (VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, ODI, SF-36 physical) improved from preoperative to 2-years postoperative (P < .05), with both groups showing no significant differences in extent of improvement for any outcome. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion demonstrated superior restoration of disc height (L3-L4: 4.1 ± 2.4 vs 1.2 ± 1.9 mm, P < .001; L4-L5: 4.6 ± 2.4 vs .8 ± 2.8 mm, P < .001), foraminal height (FH) (L3-L4: 3.5 ± 3.6 vs 1.0 ± 3.6 mm, P = .014; L4-L5: 3.0 ± 3.5 vs -.1 ± 4.4 mm, P = .0080), segmental lordosis (4.1 ± 6.4 vs -2.1 ± 8.1°, P = .005), lumbar lordosis (LL) (4.1 ± 7.0 vs -2.3 ± 12.6°, P = .026) and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch (-4.1 ± 7.0 vs 2.3 ± 12.6°, P = .019) at 2-years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The superior radiological outcomes demonstrated by 2-level trans-psoas LLIF did not translate into difference in clinical outcomes compared to 2-level TLIF at the 2-years follow-up, suggesting both approaches are reasonable for 2-level lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Comparison of Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The MIS-TLIF has been widely used in lumbar degenerative diseases and achieved favorable clinical effects. The main disadvantage is the limited working space and visualization, especially in the deeper operational field, for preparing fusion bed. In recent years, with the development of surgical techniques, optical technology, and special instruments, Endo-TLIF has gradually been applied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the lumbar degenerative diseases. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, operative time, length of hospital stay and complications. Data analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 687 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled result revealed there was no significant differences in the VAS of leg, Oswestry Disability Index, fusion rate, disk height, segmental lordosis, and complication rate between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, the VAS of back in the Endo-TLIF group was significantly less than those in the MIS-TLIF group within 2 weeks after surgery [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-1.33 (-1.98, -0.68), P <0.0001] and at 3 months postoperatively [WMD=-0.72(-0.85, -0.59), P <0.00001]. The Endo-TLIF group also seemed to fewer VAS of back at the last follow-up (≥12 mo) [WMD=-0.12 (-0.25, -0.00), P =0.05]. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group was associated with longer operation time [WMD=26.74 (2.14, 51.34), P =0.03], but shorter length of hospital stay [WMD=-1.98(-2.91, -1.05), P <0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with minimally invasive TLIF, endoscopic TLIF achieved comparable improvement of symptoms and intervertebral fusion, longer operation time, and smaller surgical trauma. Endoscopic TLIF, which requires a demanding learning curve, maybe a feasible and effective technique for the patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative diseases.

A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery.

METHODS

This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate.

RESULTS

Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients' age.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Presently, no study has compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUA) and Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of through Mis-TLIF combined with BDUA and Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for the treatment of DLD, and reported the learning curve of the procedure of MIS-TLIF with BDUA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the prospectively collected data of consecutive DLD patients in the two groups from January 2016 to January 2020.

RESULTS

The operative time (OT) was significantly longer in the Mis-TLIF group (n = 113) than in the Open-TLIF group (n = 135). The postoperative drainage volume (PDV) and length of stay (LOS) were significantly higher in the Open-TLIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, the complication rate was significantly higher in the Open-TLIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group (14.8% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.030), while there was no significant difference in the reoperation and adjacent segment disease rates between the two groups. There were no significant differences in back pain and leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups preoperatively, at discharge, and 2 years postoperatively. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in NRS scores and ODI scores after surgery. OT was negatively correlated with the number of surgeries performed (P < 0.001, r =  -0.43). The learning curve of Mis-TLIF with BDUA was steep, with OT tapered to steady state in 43 cases.

CONCLUSION

Compared with Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression, Mis-TLIF with BDUA can achieve equivalent clinical outcomes, lower PDV and LOS, and lower complication rates. Although this procedure took longer, it could be a viable alternative for the treatment of DLD after a steep learning curve.

Comparison of a novel hand-held retractor-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the wiltse approach and posterior TLIF: a one-year prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of a novel hand-held retractor system-assisted Wiltse TLIF with that P-TLIF and assess whether this hand-held retractor system assisted Wiltse TLIF can yield less paraspinal muscle injury.

METHODS

56 patients (P-TLIF: 26, Wiltse TLIF: 30) were included in this one year prospective controlled study. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, mobilization time, and discharge time were recorded. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by ODI, VAS, JOA, and SF-36 scores (7 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery). Paraspinal muscle injury was assessed by postoperative MRI (6 months after surgery). CK and C-reaction protein were measured pre and postoperatively, and CT or X-ray (one year postoperatively) was used to assess bony union/non-union.

RESULTS

The Wiltse (study) group was associated with significantly less estimated blood loss (79.67 ± 28.59 ml vs 192.31 ± 59.48 ml, P = 0.000*), postoperative drainage (43.33 ± 27.89 ml vs 285.57 ± 123.05 ml, P = 0.000*), and shorter mobilization (4.1 ± 1.2 d vs. 3.0 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.05) and discharge times (7.7 ± 1.9 d vs. 6.1 ± 1.2 d, P = 0.002*) than the P-TLIF (control) group. Serum CK activity at 24 h postoperatively in the study group was significantly lower than in the control group (384.10 ± 141.99 U/L vs 532.76 ± 225.76 U/L, P = 0.018*). At 7 days after surgery, VAS (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 3.2 ± 0.7, P = 0.000*)and ODI scores (43.9 ± 11.9 vs 55.2 ± 12.9, P = 0.001*) were lower, while the JOA scores (18.4 ± 3.4 vs 16.3 ± 4.2, P = 0.041*) was higher in the control group than in the study group. Results observed at 3 months of follow-up were consistent with those at 7 days. After six months postoperatively, paraspinal muscle degeneration in the control group was more significant than in the study group (P = 0.008*).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that this novel hand-held retractor system assisted Wiltse approach TLIF can significantly reduce paraspinal muscle injury, postoperative drainage, and intraoperative blood loss, mobilization and discharge time, as well as yield better short-term outcomes compared to P-TLIF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

25/09/2023 NCT06052579.

Is unilateral-approach full-endoscopic lumbar fusion effective for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral symptoms? A preliminary report of 43 CT analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical results and radiological parameters changes after unilateral-approach endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral symptoms.

METHODS

43 single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis patients with bilateral lower limb symptoms were included from June 2020 to May 2022. All patients underwent unilateral-approach Endo-LIF and postoperative computed tomography. Radiological parameters including disk height (DH), degree of upper vertebral slip (DUVS), and foramen intervertebral parameters including bilateral foraminal height (FH), contralateral foraminal areas (FA) were evaluated. The clinical outcomes including low back pain and bilateral leg pain were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before and after surgery.

RESULTS

All cases were successfully completed surgery and followed for average 15.16 ± 5.2 months. DH (44% ± 11%) and DUVS were significantly improvement postoperatively compared with preoperatively (p < 0.05). Statistically significant increases in bilateral FH (25% ± 11% on the surgical side, 17% ± 8% on the contralateral side) and contralateral FA (26% ± 6%) were observed (p < 0.05). The VAS and the ODI scores were significantly decreased in comparison with the preoperative scores (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Unilateral-approach with contralateral indirect decompression in Endo-LIF can acquire satisfactory clinical outcomes. Therefore, unilateral-approach Endo-LIF may be a promising option for lumbar spondylolisthesis with bilateral symptoms.

A Comprehensive Review of the Historical Description of Spine Surgery and Its Evolution

Major strides in the advancement of spine surgery came about in the 21st century. However, the extensive history of spine surgery can be traced back to long before this time. A clear description of the journey from a primitive yet accurate understanding of the human musculoskeletal system to today's modern aspects of spinal techniques is lacking. A narrative literature review was conducted to elucidate where spine surgery began and the techniques used that evolved over time. This review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Search terms used included "history of spine surgery," "evolution of spine surgery," "origins of spine surgery," "history of laminectomy," "history of spinal fusion," "history of lumbar interbody fusion," "minimally invasive spine surgery," and "navigation in spine surgery." We highlight the evolution of the basic understanding of anatomy and non-surgical and surgical techniques, including bracing, laminectomy, discectomy, and spinal fusion. The current evolution and integration of minimally invasive techniques, lumbar interbody fusion techniques, robotics, navigation, and motion preservation are discussed, as these are the major areas of focus for technological advancement. This review presents an overarching synopsis of the events that chronicle the progress made in spine surgery since its conception. The review uniquely contributes to the growing body of literature on the expansion of spine surgery and highlights major events in its history.

Comparative study on the technique and efficacy of microscope-assisted MI-TLIF and naked-eye MI-TLIF in lumbar revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Lumbar revision surgery can be performed by simple lumbar nerve decompression or lumbar interbody fusion, including percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), etc. However, lumbar revision surgery is very difficult in surgical operation. We sought to explore the technique safety and efficacy of microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in lumbar revision surgery.

METHODS

Cases of postoperative recurrence following lumbar spine surgery (n = 63) treated from December 2016 to July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 24 cases of microscope-assisted MI-TLIF (microscopic group) and 39 cases of naked-eye MI-TLIF (naked-eye group). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, postoperative drainage, length of hospital stay, initial operation, and visual analog score (VAS) of low back and leg pain before and at 7 days and 3 months after the operation and the last follow-up were compared between the two groups. The Oswestry Dysfunction Index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores before and after the operation and the Bridwell interbody fusion grades at 1 year were compared. The independent t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Chi-square tests were used for analysis.

RESULTS

All 63 patients were successfully treated by operation and were followed up for an average of 31.5 ± 8.6 months (range 12-48 months). The two groups had no significant difference in sex, age, incision length, initial operation, or operative segment (P > 0.05). There was no significance in operation time, VAS score, ODI score, and JOA score of low back pain or Bridwell interbody fusion grade between the two groups (P > 0.05). Significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and the lengths of hospital stay were observed between the two groups (P < 0.05). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage (n = 2), edema of nerve roots (n = 2), and incision infection (n = 1) were observed in the naked-eye group. There were no complications in the microscopic group, such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage, edema of nerve roots, and incision infection.

CONCLUSION

Although microscope-assisted MI-TLIF and naked-eye MI-TLIF are both effective during lumbar revision surgery, microscope-assisted MI-TLIF brings less trauma, less bleeding, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery. Unlike traditional surgery, microscope-assisted MI-TLIF provides a clear visual field, adequate hemostasis, and nerve decompression.

Effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted (RA) technology has been widely used in spine surgery. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RA minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and fluoroscopy-assisted (FA) MIS-TLIF for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases (DLSD). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched, and the outcomes included surgical parameters [operation time, blood loss, number of fluoroscopic, accuracy of pedicle screw position, superior facet joint violation (FJV)], and clinical indexes (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, complications). Eleven articles involving 1066 patients were included. RA group produced better results than the FA group in operation time (WMD = - 6.59; 95% CI - 12.79 to - 0.40; P = 0.04), blood loss (WMD = - 34.81; 95% CI - 50.55 to - 19.08; P < 0.0001), number of fluoroscopic (WMD = - 18.24; 95% CI - 30.63 to - 5.85; P = 0.004), accuracy of pedicle screw position: Grade A (OR = 3.16; 95% CI 2.36-4.23; P < 0.00001), Grade B (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54; P < 0.00001), Grade C (OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.54; P = 0.0002), and Grade D (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.98; P = 0.05), FJV: Grade 0 (OR = 3.27; 95% CI 1.34-8.02; P = 0.010), Grade 1 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.38; P < 0.00001), Grade 2 (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51; P = 0.0002), and Grade 3 (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.07-0.93; P = 0.04). But no significant differences in VAS score, ODI, JOA score, clinical efficacy, hospital stays, and complications. These results demonstrate a significant improvement in the intraoperative course of the RA technique. However, RA-MIS-TLIF has not yet demonstrated significant advantages in terms of postoperative symptom relief and functional improvement. Future research and clinical practice should further explore the efficacy of this technique to optimize outcomes and quality of life for patients with DLSD. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023454405).

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF published from September 2017 to September 2022 for the treatment of LDD were retrieved. Data were extracted from preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, estimated intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, etc.

RESULT

Thirty-one studies with 3467 patients were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of the 3 procedures, Endo-LIF was superior to MIS-TLIF and OTLIF in terms of reducing EBL, LOS, time to ambulation, and VAS score of back pain. MIS-TLIF was superior to Endo-LIF in terms of ODI improvement, and OTLIF required the shortest intraoperative fluoroscopy time. There was no significant difference in operative time, complication rate, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, or JOA score among the 3 procedures.

CONCLUSION

Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF each have their own advantages and disadvantages and show similar results in many respects, except for better early outcomes achieved with the more minimally invasive procedure.

Towards a More Realistic Appraisal of Complications Following Staged Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single Institution Series

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

With steadily increasing implementation of far lateral approaches in spine surgery, surgeons can utilize the advantages of different approaches synergistically to ensure an optimal patient outcome. Our single institution study aimed to assess the complication rates of patients who underwent a lateral interbody fusion as the index procedure and additional anterior or posterior instrumentation as part of a planned staged surgical reconstruction effort.

METHODS

This study was approved by our institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We included 576 patients who received a lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as the index procedure followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were complications identified during the initial inpatient stay, which were categorized into approach-related and secondary complications. Secondary outcomes tracked up to 6 years post-surgery.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 19.2% (10.5% approach related, 8.7% secondary complications). Significant intraoperative hemorrhage (mean 659.3 mL vs 131.4 mL, P < .01) was the most common approach related complication with an incidence of 4%, followed by temporary hip flexor weakness in 2.6%. A permanent (femoral) nerve damage was verified in 1 patient. The most common secondary complication was impaired wound healing in 12 patients (2.1%). We identified a 7.1% (41 of 576 patients) rate of revision surgery, on average after 372 days (±34 days).

CONCLUSIONS

We recorded an overall complication rate of 19.2% for staged adult deformity corrective surgeries utilizing far lateral interbody fusions at several lumbar levels followed by a more comprehensive posterior surgical reconstruction.

Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion through a modified hemilateral spinous process-splitting approach

OBJECTIVE

To describe unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) via a modified hemilateral spinous process-splitting (MHSPS) approach and determine its effectiveness.

METHODS

Sixty-five consecutive patients with the lumbar degenerative disease who underwent MHSPS TLIF between August 2020 and July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were evaluated before surgery and at the last follow-up. Postoperative paraspinal muscle atrophy was evaluated on axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Mean JOA score increased from 13.6 ± 3.21 before surgery to 24.72 ± 3.34 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean recovery rate was 68.2% ± 5.68%. Clinical outcome was excellent in 22, good in 35, and fair in 8 patients. The VAS score for low back pain was significantly lower at the last follow-up than before surgery (1.18 ± 0.99 vs. 3.09 ± 1.35; p < 0.001). The VAS score for leg pain was also significantly lower at the last follow-up than before surgery (1.13 ± 0.91 vs. 6.61 ± 1.23; p < 0.001). The mean paraspinal muscle atrophy rate did not significantly differ between the symptomatic side (6% ± 3.8%) and asymptomatic side (4.8% ± 3.3%) at last follow -up (p = 0.071).

CONCLUSION

MHSPS TLIF is an effective minimally invasive surgical treatment for selected types of degenerative lumbar disease. This technique can achieve effective spinal decompression and interbody fusion. Its advantages include direct and adequate visualization, vast surgical working space, short operation time, and minimal muscle injury.

Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

This study was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023432460). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, and Wei Pu Database by computer to collect controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of unilateral BE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases from database establishment to May 2023. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies, recorded the authors, and sample size, and extracted the intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative drainage, Oswestry disability index, Visual analogue scale, lumbar lordosis, disk height, hospital length stay, fusion rate, and complications in each study. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 14 cohort studies with a total of 1007 patients were included in this study, including 472 patients in the BE-TLIF group and 535 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. The BE-TLIF group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the MIS-TLIF group [mean difference (MD) = - 78.72, 95% CI (- 98.47, - 58.97), P < 0.00001] and significantly reduced postoperative drainage than the MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 43.20, 95% CI (- 56.57, - 29.83), P < 0.00001], and the operation time was longer than that of the MIS-TLIF group [MD = 22.68, 95% CI (12.03, 33.33), P < 0.0001]. Hospital length stay in BE-TLIF group was significantly less than that in MIS-TLIF group [MD = - 1.20, 95% CI (- 1.82, - 0.57), P = 0.0002].

CONCLUSION

Compared with MIS-TLIF, BE-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less early postoperative low back and leg pain, shorter postoperative hospital length stay, and faster early functional recovery.

Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective single-center study.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are available, but previous studies comparing lumbar fusion techniques have heterogeneous data, making interpretation challenging.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2018, data from 447 consecutive patients undergoing one/two-level lumbar fusion were analyzed. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bilateral muscle strip or Wiltse approach, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF, and posterolateral fusion only were among the surgical techniques used. Core outcomes measure index (COMI) questionnaires were distributed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively to establish patient selfreported outcome measures. Demographic data (age, gender, and body mass index [BMI]) for each patient were also collected in addition to surgical indication, previous operative history, perioperative outcomes, and complications, and whether later revision surgery was required. Pearson's chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, repeated measure mixed-effects models, and ordinal logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Postoperative COMI scores improved across all procedures compared with pre-surgery (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between different postoperative COMI scores. Significant predictors of higher postoperative COMI score included higher pretreatment COMI score (p≤0.001), previous surgery (p≤0.04), younger age (p≤0.05), higher BMI (p≤0.005), and the indications of lytic spondylolisthesis (p=0.02) and degenerative disc disease (p<0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF had a significantly shorter post-surgery stay than patients undergoing open PLIF (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

At 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between open and minimally invasive techniques. These findings suggest that the main determinant of surgical approach should be surgeon preference and training.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: A 1-Year Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting.

METHODS

A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): A Video Technique Guide

Background

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been established as an excellent alternative to the traditional open approach for the treatment of degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine1-3.

Description

The procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and on a radiolucent table in order to allow for intraoperative fluoroscopy. The procedure is performed through small incisions made over the vertebral levels of interest, typically utilizing either a fixed or expandable type of tubular dilator, which is eventually seated against the facet joint complex4. A laminectomy and/or facetectomy is performed in order to expose the disc space, and the ipsilateral neural elements are visualized5. The end plates are prepared, and an interbody device is placed after the disc is removed. Pedicle screws and rods are then placed for posterior fixation.

Alternatives

Nonoperative alternatives include physical therapy and corticosteroid injections. Other operative techniques include open TLIF or other types of lumbar fusion approaches, such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral or extreme lateral interbody fusion, or oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Rationale

Open TLIF was developed in order to obtain a more lateral approach to the lumbar disc space than was previously possible with PLIF. The goal of this was to minimize the amount of thecal-sac and nerve-root retraction required during PLIF4. Additionally, as the number of patients who required revision after PLIF increased, the need arose for an approach to the lumbar spine that circumvented the posterior midline scarring from previous PLIF surgical sites6. MI-TLIF was introduced to reduce the approach-related paraspinal muscle damage of open TLIF5. Indications for MI-TLIF include most degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine, including disc herniation, low-grade spondylolisthesis, and spinal and foraminal stenosis7. However, MI-TLIF allows for less robust correction of deformity than other minimally invasive approaches; therefore, MI-TLIF may not be as effective in cases of substantial spinal deformity or high-grade spondylolisthesis8.

Expected Outcomes

MI-TLIF results in significantly less blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital length of stay compared with open TLIF1-3. Although some studies have suggested increased operative time for MI-TLIF9,10, meta-analyses have shown comparable operative times between the 2 techniques1-3. It is thought that the discrepancy in reported operative times is the result of a learning curve and that, once that is overcome, the difference in operative time between the 2 techniques becomes minimal11,12. One disadvantage of MI-TLIF that has remained constant in the literature is its increased intraoperative fluoroscopy time compared with open TLIF3,13. The complication rate has largely been found to be equivalent between open and MI-TLIF1-3 or slightly lower with MI-TLIF14, especially in the hands of an experienced surgeon15. Finally, the fusion rate and improvement in patient outcome scores have also been found to be largely equivalent1-3.

Important Tips

We suggest placing the ipsilateral pedicle screw after the interbody cage has been inserted.Fully visualize the Kambin triangle16 prior to performing the facetectomy. Protect the exiting and traversing nerve roots by placing small cottonoids around them and retracting delicately.Bone removed during facetectomy can be utilized as autograft for the interbody cage.Avoid removing pedicle bone during decompression.If central stenosis is present, the neural decompression should be extended medial to the epidural fat so that the dura mater can be visualized all of the way to the contralateral pedicle.Perform an adequate end plate preparation prior to interbody insertion while being mindful to avoid injuring the end plate, to minimize the risk of future cage subsidence.Confirm correct placement of the interbody device on intraoperative fluoroscopy.If bone morphogenic protein is utilized, be careful not to pack too much posteriorly as this may cause nerve irritation.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMI-TLIF = minimally invasive TLIFPLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusionALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionLLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionXLIF = extreme lateral interbody fusionOLIF = oblique lumbar interbody fusionDLIF = direct lateral interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingA/P = anteroposteriorEMG = electromyographicBMP = bone morphogenic proteinXR = x-ray (radiograph)OTC = over the counterDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolismMI = myocardial infarctionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryOR = operating roomLOS = length of stayVAS = visual analog scaleODI = Oswestry Disability IndexM-H = Mantel-HaenszelRR = risk ratioCI = confidence intervalNSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases by meta-analysis.

METHODS

A computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) was conducted from the inception of the each database to April 2023. The searched literature was then screened according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager software5.4.1. Pooled effects were calculated on the basis of data attributes by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies and 949 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, 445 in the UBE-LIF group and 504 in the MIS-TLIF group. UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but the operative time was longer than MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height.

CONCLUSION

Both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. They have similar treatment outcomes, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202320087).

Trends of Surgical Service Utilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in South Korea: A 10-Year (2010-2019) Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Patient Sample Data

Background and Objectives: This retrospective, cross-sectional, and descriptive study used claims data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) between 2010 and 2019 to analyze the trend of surgical service utilization in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Materials and Methods: The national patient sample data provided by the HIRA, which consisted of a 2% sample of the entire Korean population, was used to assess all patients who underwent decompression or fusion surgery at least once in Korea, with LSS as the main diagnosis from January 2010 to December 2019. An in-depth analysis was conducted to examine the utilization of surgical services, taking into account various demographic characteristics of patients, the frequency of claims for different types of surgeries, reoperation rates, the specific types of inpatient care associated with each surgery type, prescribed medications, and the overall expense of healthcare services. Results: A total of 6194 claims and 6074 patients were analyzed. The number of HIRA claims for patients increased from 393 (2010) to 417 (2019) for decompression, and from 230 (2010) to 244 (2019) for fusion. As for the medical expenses of surgery, there was an increase from United States dollar (USD) 867,549.31 (2010) to USD 1,153,078.94 (2019) for decompression and from USD 1,330,440.37 (2010) to USD 1,780,026.48 (2019) for fusion. Decompression accounted for the highest proportion (65.8%) of the first surgeries, but more patients underwent fusion (50.6%) than decompression (49.4%) in the second surgery. Across all sex and age groups, patients who underwent fusion procedures experienced longer hospital stays and incurred higher medical expenses for their inpatient care. Conclusion: The surgical service utilization of patients with LSS and the prescribing rate of opioids and non-opioid analgesics for surgical patients increased in 2019 compared to 2010. From mid-2010 onward, claims for fusion showed a gradual decrease, whereas those for decompression showed a continuously increasing trend. The findings of this study are expected to provide basic research data for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers.

Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1-2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PETLIF): Current Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Narrative Review

Full endoscopic techniques are becoming more popular for degenerative lumbar pathologies. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PETLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique for spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal canal stenosis with instability. Nagahama first introduced PETLIF in 2019. This study investigated the clinical outcomes and complications of 24 patients who underwent PETLIF in our facility and compared them with previous studies. Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Web of Science. The PETLIF surgical technique involves three steps to acquire disc height under general anesthesia. The procedure includes bone harvesting, spondylolisthesis reduction, endoscopic foraminoplasty, disc height expansion using an oval dilator, and intervertebral disc curettage. A cage filled with autologous bone is inserted into the disc space and secured with posterior fixation. Patients underwent PETLIF with an average operation time of 130.8 min and a blood loss of 24.0 mL. Postoperative hospital stays were 9.5 days. Improvement in VAS, disc height, spinal canal area, and % slip was observed, while lumbar lordosis remained unchanged. Complications included end plate injury, subsidence, and exiting nerve root injury. The differences between PETLIF and the extracted literature were found in patients' age, direct decompression, epidural or local anesthesia, approach, order of PPS, and cage insertion. In conclusion, PETLIF surgery is a practical, minimally invasive surgical technique for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases suffering from back and leg pain, demonstrating significant improvements in pain scores. However, it is essential to carefully consider the potential complications and continue to refine the surgical technique further to enhance the safety and efficacy of this procedure.

Augmented Reality in Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery: A Narrative Review of Available Technology

INTRODUCTION

Spine surgery has undergone significant changes in approach and technique. With the adoption of intraoperative navigation, minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) has arguably become the gold standard. Augmented reality (AR) has now emerged as a front-runner in anatomical visualization and narrower operative corridors. In effect, AR is poised to revolutionize surgical training and operative outcomes. Our study examines the current literature on AR-assisted MISS, synthesizes findings, and creates a narrative highlighting the history and future of AR in spine surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Relevant literature was gathered using the PubMed (Medline) database from 1975 to 2023. Pedicle screw placement models were the primary intervention in AR. These were compared to the outcomes of traditional MISS RESULTS: We found that AR devices on the market show promising clinical outcomes in preoperative training and intraoperative use. Three prominent systems were as follows: XVision, HoloLens, and ImmersiveTouch. In the studies, surgeons, residents, and medical students had opportunities to operate AR systems, showcasing their educational potential across each phase of learning. Specifically, one facet described training with cadaver models to gauge accuracy in pedicle screw placement. AR-MISS exceeded free-hand methods without unique complications or contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

While still in its infancy, AR has already proven beneficial for educational training and intraoperative MISS applications. We believe that with continued research and advancement of this technology, AR is poised to become a dominant player within the fundamentals of surgical education and MISS operative technique.

Preoperative Low Back Pain Affects Postoperative Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center retrospective study.

PURPOSE

To research the predictive factors associated with postoperative patient satisfaction 1 year after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), a minimally invasive procedure for lumbar degenerative disease.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

There have been reports of numerous variables influencing patient satisfaction with lumbar surgery; however, there have been few investigations on MIS are limited.

METHODS

This study included 229 patients (107 men and 122 women; mean age, 68.9 years) who received one or two levels of MISTLIF, and the patient's age, gender, disease, paralysis, preoperative physical functions, duration of symptom(s), and surgery-associated factors (waiting for surgery, number of surgical levels, surgical time, and intraoperative blood loss) were studied. Radiographic characteristics and clinical outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100) ODI scores for low back pain, leg pain, and numbness were studied. One year following surgery, patient satisfaction (defined as satisfaction for surgery and for present condition; 0-100) was assessed using VAS and its relationships with investigation factors were examined.

RESULTS

The mean VAS scores of satisfaction for surgery and for present condition were 88.6 and 84.2, respectively. The results of multiple regression analysis showed that preoperative adverse factors of satisfaction for surgery were being elderly (β =-0.17, p =0.023), high preoperative low back pain VAS scores (β =-0.15, p =0.020), and postoperative adverse factors were high postoperative ODI scores (β =-0.43, p <0.001). In addition, the preoperative adverse factor of satisfaction for present condition was high preoperative low back pain VAS scores (β =-0.21, p =0.002), and postoperative adverse factors were high postoperative ODI scores (β =-0.45, p <0.001) and high postoperative low back pain VAS scores (β =-0.26, p =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this study, significant preoperative low back pain and high postoperative ODI score after surgery are linked to patient unhappiness.

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with L4/5 grade-1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with grade-1 L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the comparative analysis included consecutive patients with grade-1 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent oblique LIF (OLIF, n = 36) or minimally invasive transforaminal LIF (MI-TLIF, n = 45) at the Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January 2016 to August 2017. Patient satisfaction Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), radiographic outcomes including anterior/posterior disc heights (ADH/PDH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, and fusion rate were assessed during a 2-year follow-up. Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and were compared between groups using the independent sample t-test. Categorical data are presented as n (%) and were compared between groups using the Pearson chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Repetitive measurement and analysis of variance was employed in the analysis of ODI, back pain VAS score, and leg pain VAS score. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The OLIF and MI-TLIF groups comprised 36 patients (age, 52.1 ± 7.2 years; 27 women) and 45 patients (age, 48.4 ± 14.4 years; 24 women), respectively. Satisfaction rates at 2 years post procedure exceeded 90% in both groups. The OLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss (140 ± 36 vs 233 ± 62 mL), lower back pain VAS score (2.42 ± 0.81 vs 3.38 ± 0.47), and ODI score (20.47 ± 2.53 vs 27.31 ± 3.71) at 3 months follow-up (with trends toward lower values at 2 years follow-up), but higher leg pain VAS scores at all postoperative time points than the MI-TLIF group (all p < 0.001). ADH, PDH, FD, and FW improved in both groups post-surgery. At the 2 year follow-up, the OLIF group had a higher rate of Bridwell grade-I fusion (100% vs 88.9%, p = 0.046) and lower incidences of cage subsidence (8.33% vs 46.67%, p < 0.001) and retropulsion (0% vs 6.67%, p = 0.046) than the MI-TLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with grade-I spondylolisthesis, OLIF was associated with lower blood loss and greater improvements in VAS for back pain and ODI and radiologic outcomes than MI-TLIF. The OLIF is more suitable for these patients with low back pain as the main symptoms are accompanied by mild or no leg symptoms before operation.

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) are both minimally invasive interbody fusion procedures for lumbar degenerative diseases. In this study, we attempted to compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative outcomes of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised 99 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated by MIS-TLIF or Endo-LIF from January 2019 to July 2021. The clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and MacNab criteria) preoperatively, 1 month postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 1 year postoperatively were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, disease duration, affected spine segment, and complications (P > 0.05). The operation time was significantly longer in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group (155.25 ± 12.57 vs. 123.14 ± 14.50 min; P < 0.05). However, the Endo-LIF group had a significantly smaller blood loss volume (61.79 ± 10.09 vs. 259.97 ± 14.63 ml) and shorter hospital stay (5.46 ± 1.11 vs. 7.06 ± 1.42 days) than the MIS-TLIF group. In both groups, the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain were significantly lower at each postoperative timepoint than preoperatively (P < 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two groups in the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain (P > 0.05), the VAS for lower back pain was lower in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group at each postoperative timepoint. The MacNab criteria showed that the improvement rate was 92.2% in the MIS-TLIF group and 91.7% in the Endo-LIF group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in short-term surgical outcomes between the MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF groups. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-LIF group incurred less damage to surrounding tissues, experienced less intraoperative blood loss, and had less lower back pain, which is more conducive to recovery.

Multitrack and multianchor point screw technique combined with the Wiltse approach for lesion debridement for lumbar tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of lumbar tuberculosis is high worldwide, and effective treatment is a continuing problem.

AIM

To study the safety and efficacy of the multitrack and multianchor point screw technique combined with the contralateral Wiltse approach for lesion debridement to treat lumbar tuberculosis.

METHODS

The C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, oswestry disability index (ODI) and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade were recorded and analysed pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The CRP level and ESR returned to normal, and the VAS score and ODI were decreased at 3 mo postoperatively, with significant differences compared with the preoperative values (P < 0.01). Neurological dysfunction was relieved, and the ASIA grade increased, with no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The multitrack, multianchor point screw fixation technique combined with the contralateral Wiltse approach for debridement is an effective and safe method for the treatment of lumbar tuberculosis.

Beyond Magnification and Illumination: Ergonomics with a 3D Exoscope in Lumbar Spine Microsurgery to Reduce Musculoskeletal Injuries

OBJECTIVE

The risk of musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) increases over years of practice which may lead to career-ending among surgeons. Exoscopes represent a new generation of imaging systems that help surgeons operate in a more comfortable posture. This article aimed to assess advantages and limitations, especially ergonomics with a 3D exoscope in lumbar spine microsurgery versus an operating microscope (OM) to reduce MSIs.

METHODS

From March 2018 to May 2020, 90 patients with lumbar disc herniation undergoing a single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) procedure were included. Forty-seven patients were operated with the assistance of the exoscope and 43 patients were operated with the assistance of the OM. Clinical data, magnification, and illumination were evaluated. In particular, the ergonomics of surgeons was evaluated by a questionnaire (subjective) and a rapid entire body assessment (REBA; objective).

RESULTS

The postoperative outcomes were reasonably well balanced between the two groups. The handling of the exoscope was comparable to that of the OM. The depth perception, image quality, and illumination of the exoscope were inferior to those of the OM in MIS-TLIF with long and deep approaches. The educational and training function of the exoscope was superior to that of the OM. Importantly, surgeons rated the ergonomics of the exoscope as very high on the questionnaire and the REBA to the OM (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the exoscope was a safe and effective alternative to the OM for assisting the MIS-TLIF procedure with the unique advantage of ergonomics to reduce musculoskeletal injuries.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A computer search for the published literature on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and other databases was performed, from which 522 related articles were retrieved and 13 were finally included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and analyzed them using RevMan 5.4. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane systematic analysis and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis showed that the blood loss [95% confidence intervals (CI) (- 121.01, - 54.56), [Formula: see text]], hospital stay [95% CI (- 1.98, - 0.85), [Formula: see text]], postoperative fusion rate [95%CI (1.04, 3.60), [Formula: see text]], postoperative disc height [95% CI (0.50, 3.63), [Formula: see text]], and postoperative foraminal height [95% CI (0.96, 4.13), [Formula: see text]] were all better in the OLIF group; however, the complication rates were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF group [95% CI (1.01, 2.06), [Formula: see text]]. However, there were no significant differences between the two in terms of surgery time, patient satisfaction, or postoperative functional scores. The OLIF group had the advantages of lower blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, a higher postoperative fusion rate, and better recovery of the disc and foraminal heights, whereas MIS-TLIF had a relatively lower complication rate.

Biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints: technical note and preliminary results

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to introduce biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-EFLIF), which involves insertion of a cage through a more lateral side as compared to the conventional corridor of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We described the advantages and surgical steps of 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints insertion through multi-portal approach, and preliminary results of this technique.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 12 consecutive patients who underwent BE-EFLIF for symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Clinical outcomes, including a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI), were collected at preoperative months 1 and 3, and 6 months postoperatively. In addition, perioperative data and radiographic parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean patient age, follow-up period, operation time, and volume of surgical drainage were 68.3 ± 8.4 years, 7.6 ± 2.8 months, 188.3 ± 42.4 min, 92.5 ± 49.6 mL, respectively. There were no transfusion cases. All patients showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI postoperatively, and these were maintained for 6 months after surgery (P < 0.001). The anterior and posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery (P < 0.001), and the cage was ideally positioned in all patients. There were no incidences of early cage subsidence or other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-EFLIF using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints is a feasible option for minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. This technique is expected to reduce the risk of cage subsidence and improve the fusion rate.

Determining the learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases

PURPOSE

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is one of the least invasive procedures for lumbar degenerative disorders (LDD). There is limited knowledge of the learning curve for PELIF.

METHODS

A total of 93 consecutive patients who underwent PELIF performed by a single spine surgeon for LDD failed with conservative treatment were retrospectively reviewed. The case series was split into three groups based on timing: A (earliest third of patients); B (middle third of patients); and C (latest third of patients). The following were also recorded: operating time, X-ray exposure time, complications, radiologic fusion rates, pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores (visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain, VAS for leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Oswestry Disability Index and MacNab criteria), length of hospital stay, and need for revision surgeries. A learning curve was then developed by a logarithmic curve-fit regression analysis.

RESULTS

The operative time gradually decreased over time, and an asymptote was reached after about 25 cases. Compared with group B or C, group A had significantly longer operative time, significantly longer length of hospital stay, needed significantly more x-ray exposure time. Though not significantly different, there are fewer complications and revision surgeries over time. There is no significant difference over time in PROMs scores except for the VAS back scores.

CONCLUSIONS

PELIF is an alternative for minimal invasive surgery for LDD, PELIF presents a learning curve to the practicing spine surgeon with regard to operative time, x-ray exposure time, length of hospital stay, clinical PROMs and radiographic outcomes and complications. The presented PELIF learning curve provided valuable insight to surgeons interested in performing this surgery.

The "In-Parallel" Technique for Awake, Bilateral Simultaneous Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Multilevel Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and MIS lumbar decompression have been successfully undertaken in the absence of general anesthesia in well-selected patients. By leveraging spinal anesthesia, surgeons may safely conduct surgeries on one- or two-level lumbar pathology. However, surgeries on more extensive pathology have not yet been described, because of concerns about the duration of efficacy of spinal anesthetic in the awake patient.

OBJECTIVE

To report the use of a novel awake technique for "in parallel," simultaneous lumbar spinal surgery on three-segment pathology.

METHODS

We describe concurrent performance of a dual microscopic, navigated MIS TLIF and MIS two-level decompression, using a combination of liposomal bupivacaine erector spinae block in conjunction with a spinal anesthetic.

RESULTS

We show that a left-sided, two-level MIS tubular microscopic decompression combined with a concurrent right-sided, transfacet MIS TLIF via a tubular microscopic approach was well tolerated in an 87-year-old patient with multilevel lumbar stenosis with a mobile spondylolisthesis.

CONCLUSION

We provide the first description of a dual-surgeon approach for minimally invasive spine surgery. This "in-parallel" technique-reliant on 2, independent spine surgeons-may aid in the performance of surgeries previously considered too extensive, given the time constraints of regional anesthesia and can be successfully applied to patients who otherwise may not be candidates for general anesthesia.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Setting with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach to surgical care that aims to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Its application to spine surgery has been increasing in recent years, with a notable focus on lumbar fusion. This study describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of the first ERAS pathway for ambulatory spine surgery and the largest ambulatory minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) series to date.

METHODS

A comprehensive protocol for ambulatory lumbar fusion is described, including patient selection criteria, a multimodal analgesia regimen, and discharge assessment. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF using the described protocol at a single ambulatory surgery center (ASC) over a five-year period were queried.

RESULTS

A total of 215 patients underwent ambulatory MIS TLIF over the study period. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. All but one patient (99.5%) were discharged home from the ASC. Almost three-quarters (71.2%) were discharged on the day of surgery. Thirty- and 90-day readmission rates were 1.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Only one readmission (0.5%) was for intractable back pain. There were no reoperations or mortalities within 90 days of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS TLIF can be performed safely in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center with minimal perioperative and short-term morbidity. The addition of comprehensive ERAS protocols to the ambulatory setting can promote the transition of fusion procedures to this lower cost environment in an effort to provide higher value care.

A Comparative Clinical Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion between Patients with Multiply Operated Back and Patients with First-Time Surgery

Background and Objectives: Patients with multiply operated back (MOB) may suffer from persistent lower-back pain associated with back muscle damage and epidural fibrosis following repeated back surgery (Failed Back Spinal Syndrome). Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is considered to be favorable for MOB patients. However, little scientific research has been carried out for this issue due to variety of the pathogenesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of MOB patients and first-time surgery patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis (spinal instability). Materials and Methods: LLIF was performed for lumbar spinal stenosis with spinal instability in 55 consecutive cases of single hospital (30 males, 25 females, average age: 69). Clinical outcomes were compared between the MOB patient group (MOB group) and the first surgical patient group (F group). We evaluated the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) before and 2 years after surgery. MOB patients were defined as those who have had one or more lumbar surgery on the same intervertebral or adjacent vertebrae in the past. Results: There were 20 cases (12 males, 8 females, average age: 71) in MOB group, and 35 cases (19 males, 16 females, average age: 68) in the F group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, number of intervertebral fixations, modic change in fused intervertebral end plate, score of brief scale for evaluation of psychiatric problem, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal vertical axis before and after surgery. The preoperative JOA scores averaged 12.5 points in the MOB group and averaged 11.6 points in the F group. The postoperative JOA scores averaged 23.9 points in the MOB group and averaged 24.7 points in the F group. The preoperative JOABPEQ averaged 36.3 points in the MOB group and averaged 35.4 points in the F group. The postoperative average JOA score was 75.4 in the MOB group and 70.2 in the F group. Conclusions: Based on the results, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes of the two groups, and there was no new residual lower-back pain. Thus, we considered that LLIF one option for patients with MOB.

A biomechanical comparison of posterior fixation approaches in lumbar fusion using computed tomography based lumbosacral spine modelling

Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) may be performed with a standalone interbody cage, or with the addition of unilateral or bilateral pedicle screws; however, decisions regarding supplemental fixation are predominantly based on clinical indicators. This study examines the impact of posterior supplemental fixation on facet micromotions, cage loads and load-patterns at adjacent levels in a L4-L5 XLIF at early and late fusion stages. CT data from an asymptomatic subject were segmented into anatomical regions and digitally stitched into a surface mesh of the lumbosacral spine (L1-S1). The interbody cage and posterior instrumentation (unilateral and bilateral) were inserted at L4-L5. The volumetric mesh was imported into finite element software for pre-processing, running nonlinear static solves and post-processing. Loads and micromotions at the index-level facets reduced commensurately with the extent of posterior fixation accompanying the XLIF, while load-pattern changes observed at adjacent facets may be anatomically dependent. In flexion at partial fusion, compressive stress on the cage reduced by 54% and 72% in unilateral and bilateral models respectively; in extension the reductions were 58% and 75% compared to standalone XLIF. A similar pattern was observed at full fusion. Unilateral fixation provided similar stability compared to bilateral, however there was a reduction in cage stress-risers with the bilateral instrumentation. No changes were found at adjacent discs. Posterior supplemental fixation alters biomechanics at the index and adjacent levels in a manner that warrants consideration alongside clinical information. Unilateral instrumentation is a more efficient option where the stability requirements and subsidence risk are not excessive.