Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Mini-open Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Oblique Self-anchored Stand-alone Cages for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study With 2-year Follow-up

An Update in Complication Rates Associated With Anterior Lumbar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with different anterior fusion techniques/approaches and adjuvant resources (i.e., computed tomography angiography (CTA), rhBMP-2, and access surgeons).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from 1/1/2014-4/1/2024 for studies evaluating the incidence of complications associated with anterior lumbar procedures. Comparisons of complications were made between surgical approach, use of CTA, rhBMP-2, and access surgeons. Meta-analyses were conducted using a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

54 studies were included in the final analysis with 8066 patients and an average follow-up of 31.2 months. The overall complication rate associated with anterior lumbar surgery was 13.1%, including an intraoperative complication rate of 3.8%, postoperative complication rate of 7.4%, infection rate of 1.5%, and reoperation rate of 1.7%. Forest plot analysis showed no significant difference in overall complication rates between open and mini-open techniques, although mini-open techniques were associated with lower overall reoperation rates. The use of CTA was associated with an increase in intraoperative and overall complications, and the use of an access surgeon was associated with a decreased risk of reoperation. The use of rhBMP-2 was not associated with overall complication risk.

CONCLUSIONS

While anterior lumbar surgery provides numerous benefits, surgeons and patients alike should be aware of the complication and safety profile prior to surgery. High quality studies are warranted to help elucidate the true benefit of certain techniques and adjuvant resources in reducing complications.

Endplate weakening during cage bed preparation significantly reduces endplate load capacity

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of endplate weakness prior to PLIF or TLIF cage implantation and compare it to the opposite intact endplate of the same vertebral body. In addition, the influence of bone quality on endplate resistance was investigated.

METHODS

Twenty-two human lumbar vertebrae were tested in a ramp-to-failure test. One endplate of each vertebral body was tested intact and the other after weakening with a rasp (over an area of 200 mm2). Either a TLIF or PLIF cage was then placed and the compression load was applied across the cage until failure of the endplate. Failure was defined as the first local maximum of the force measurement. Bone quality was assessed by determining the Hounsfield units (HU) on CT images.

RESULTS

With an intact endplate and a TLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1276.3N (693.1-1980.6N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 15% (0-23%). With an intact endplate and a PLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1057.2N (701.2-1735.5N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 36.6% (7-47.9%). Bone quality correlated linearly with the force at which endplate failure occurred. Intact and weakened endplates showed a strong positive correlation: intact-TLIF: r = 0.964, slope of the regression line (slope) = 11.8, p < 0.001; intact-PLIF: r = 0.909, slope = 11.2, p = 5.5E-05; weakened-TLIF: r = 0.973, slope = 12.5, p < 0.001; weakened-PLIF: r = 0.836, slope = 6, p = 0.003.

CONCLUSION

Weakening of the endplate during cage bed preparation significantly reduces the resistance of the endplate to subsidence to failure: endplate load capacity is reduced by 15% with TLIF and 37% with PLIF. Bone quality correlates with the force at which endplate failure occurs.

Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) are well-established procedures for spinal fusion. However, little is known about load sharing between cage, dorsal construct, and biological tissue within the instrumented lumbar spine.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to quantify the forces acting on cages under axial compression force with and without posterior instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical cadaveric study.

METHODS

Ten lumbar spinal segments were tested under uniaxial compression using load cell instrumented intervertebral cages. The force was increased in 100N increments to 1000N or a force greater than 500N on one load cell. Each specimen was tested after unilateral PLIF (uPLIF), bilateral PLIF (bPLIF) and TLIF each with/without posterior instrumentation. Dorsal instrumentation was performed with 55N of compression per side.

RESULTS

Cage insertion resulted in median cage preloads of 16N, 29N and 35N for uPLIF, bPLIF, and TLIF. The addition of compressed dorsal instrumentation increased the median preload to 224N, 328N, and 317N, respectively. With posterior instrumentation, the percentage of the external load acting on the intervertebral cage was less than 25% at 100N (uPLIF: 14.2%; bPLIF: 16%; TLIF: 11%), less than 45% at 500N (uPLIF: 31.8%; bPLIF: 41.1%; TLIF: 37.9%) and less than 50% at 1000N (uPLIF: 40.3%; bPLIF: 49.7%; TLIF: 43.4%). Without posterior instrumentation, the percentage of external load on the cages was significantly higher with values above 50% at 100N (uPLIF: 55.6%; bPLIF: 75.5%; TLIF: 66.8%), 500N (uPLIF: 71.7%; bPLIF: 79.2%; TLIF: 65.4%), and 1000N external load (uPLIF: 73%; bPLIF: 80.5%; TLIF: 66.1%). For absolute loads, preloads and external loads must be added together.

CONCLUSIONS

Without posterior instrumentation, the intervertebral cages absorb more than 50% of the axial load and the load distribution is largely independent of the loading amplitude. With posterior instrumentation, the external load acting on the cages is significantly lower and the load distribution becomes load amplitude dependent, with a higher proportion of the load transferred by the cages at high loads. The bPLIF cages tend to absorb more force than the other two cage configurations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cage instrumentation allows some of the compression force to be transmitted through the cage to the screws below, better distributing and reducing the overall force on the pedicle screws at the end of the construct and on the rods.

Stand-alone ALIF versus TLIF in patients with low back pain - A propensity-matched cohort study with two-year follow-up

Introduction

Instrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different advantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

Research question

This is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively.

Material and methods

Data were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion.

Results

92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed (P = 0.14). No statistically significant differences in EQ-5D index scores (P = 0.25), VAS score for leg pain (P = 0.88) and back pain (P = 0.37) at two years follow-up.

Conclusion

Significant improvements in ODI, VAS-scores for back and leg pain, and EQ-5D index score were registered after two-year follow-up with both SA-ALIF and TLIF. No significant differences in improvement.

A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF)

PURPOSE

The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This study aims to compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques in patients with spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching the Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 2022. In the two-stage screening process, three reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. The full-text reports of the remaining studies were then inspected for eligibility. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussion. Two reviewers then extracted study data, assessed it for quality, and analysed it.

RESULTS

After the initial search and removal of duplicate records, 16,435 studies were screened. Twenty-one eligible studies (3686 patients) were ultimately included, which compared stand-alone ALIF with posterior approaches such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). A meta-analysis showed surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in ALIF than in TLIF/PLIF, but not in those who underwent PLF (p = 0.08). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in ALIF than in TLIF, but not in PLIF or PLF. Fusion rates were similar between the ALIF and posterior approaches. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were not significantly different between the ALIF and PLIF/TLIF groups. However, VAS back pain favoured ALIF over PLF at one year (n = 21, MD - 1.00, CI - 1.47, - 0.53), and at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 1.39, CI - 1.67, - 1.11). The VAS leg pain scores (n = 46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88) at two years significantly favoured PLF. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at one year were not significantly different between ALIF and the posterior approaches. At two years, ODI scores were also similar between the ALIF and the TLIF/PLIF. However, the ODI scores at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 7.59, CI - 13.33, - 1.85) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF (I2 = 70%). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) for low back pain at one year (n = 21, MD - 0.50, CI - 0.78) and two years (two studies, n = 67, MD - 0.36, CI - 0.65, - 0.07) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF. No significant differences were found in leg pain at the 2-year follow-up. Adverse events displayed no significant differences between the ALIF and posterior approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone-ALIF demonstrated a shorter operative time and less blood loss than the PLIF/TLIF approach. Hospitalisation time is reduced with ALIF compared with TLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal with PLIF or TLIF. VAS and JOAS, back pain, and ODI scores mainly favoured ALIF over PLF. Adverse events were equivocal between the ALIF and posterior fusion approaches.

Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) have shown a great surgical potential, while it has always been controversial which surgical approach and which type of fixation system should be selected. This study investigated the biomechanical response of ALIF and OLIF with various supplementary fixation systems using the finite element method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lumbar L4-L5 ALIF and OLIF models stabilized by different supplementary fixation systems (stand-alone cage, integrated stand-alone cage, anterior plate, and bilateral pedicle screw) were developed to assess the segmental range of motion (ROM), endplate stress (EPS), and screw-bone interface stress (SBIS).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

ALIF showed lower ROM and EPS than OLIF in all motion planes and less SBIS in the most of motion planes compared with OLIF when the anterior plate or pedicle screw was used. ALIF induced higher ROM, while lower EPS and SBIS than OLIF in the majority of motion planes when integrated stand-alone cage was utilized. Using a stand-alone cage in ALIF and OLIF led to cage migration. Integrated stand-alone cage prevented the cage migration, whereas caused significantly larger ROM, EPS, and SBIS than other fixation systems except for the rotation plane. In the most of motion planes, the pedicle screw had the lowest ROM, EPS, and SBIS. The anterior plate induced a slightly larger ROM, EPS, and SBIS than the pedicle screw, while the differences were not significant.

CONCLUSION

ALIF exhibited a better performance in postoperative segmental stability, endplate stress, and screw-bone interface stress than OLIF when the anterior plate or the pedicle screw was used. The pedicle screw could provide the greatest postoperative segmental stability, less cage subsidence incidence, and lower risk of fixation system loosening in ALIF and OLIF. The anterior plate could also contribute to the stability required and fewer complications, while not as effectively as the pedicle screw. Extreme caution should be regarded when the stand-alone cage is used due to the risk of cage migration. The integrated stand-alone cage may be an alternative method; however, further optimization is needed to reduce complications and improve postoperative segmental stability.

Safety Profile and Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Stand-Alone 2-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Series of 41 Consecutive Patients

Objective: The use of stand-alone 2-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for degenerative lumbar disease has been increasing as an alternative to routinely augmenting these constructs with posterior fixation or fusion. Despite the potential benefits of a stand-alone approach (decreased cost and operative time, decreased pain and early mobilization), there is a paucity of information regarding these operations in the literature. This investigation aimed to determine the safety profile, radiographic outcomes including fusion rates, improvement in preoperative pain, and spinopelvic parameter modification, for patients undergoing stand-alone 2-level ALIF.

Methods: This retrospective case series involved a chart review of all patients undergoing 2-level stand-alone ALIF at a single tertiary hospital from 2008 to 2018. Data included patient demographics, hospitalization, complications and radiological studies. Visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg scores were measured via patient-administered surveys preoperatively and up to 18 weeks postoperatively.

Results: Forty-one patients who underwent L4-S1 stand-alone ALIF were included. Sixteen (39%) of patients had undergone previous posterior lumbar surgery. Length of stay averaged 4.2 days. Complication rates were comparable to 1-level ALIF. Two patients required reoperation. Fusion rates were 100% for L4-5 and 94.4% for L5-S1. There was no significant change in lumbar lordosis (LL) or LL-pelvic incidence (PI), but there was improved segmental lordosis (SL) and disc height at L4-S1 on final follow-up imaging. There was also modest but statistically significant improvement in VAS back and leg scores.

Conclusions: Stand-alone 2-level ALIF is an option for a surgeon to perform in the absence of significant instability, even in the setting of prior posterior surgery. These procedures increase SL and disc height, but do not have the same effect on LL or LL-PI.

Minimally invasive dynamic screw stabilization using cortical bone trajectory

BACKGROUND

The conventional pedicle-screw-based dynamic stabilization process involves dissection of the Wiltse plane to cannulate the pedicles, which cannot be undertaken with minimal surgical invasion. Despite some reports having demonstrated satisfactory outcomes of dynamic stabilization in the management of low-grade spondylolisthesis, the extensive soft tissue dissection involved during pedicle screw insertion substantially compromises the designed rationale of motion (muscular) preservation. The authors report on a novel method for minimally invasive insertion of dynamic screws and a mini case series.

METHODS

The authors describe innovations for inserting dynamic screws via the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) under spinal navigation. All the detailed surgical procedures and clinical data are demonstrated.

RESULTS

A total of four (2 females) patients (mean age 64.75 years) with spinal stenosis at L4-5 were included. By a combination of microscopic decompression and image-guided CBT screw insertion, laminectomy and dynamic screw stabilization were achieved via one small skin incision (less than 3 cm). These patients' back and leg pain improved significantly after the surgery.

CONCLUSION

This innovative dynamic screw stabilization via the CBT involved no discectomy (or removal of sequestrated fragment only), no interbody fusion, and little muscle dissection (not even of the Wiltse plane). As a minimally invasive surgery, CBT appeared to be a viable alternative to the conventional pedicle-screw-based dynamic stabilization approach.

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Stand-Alone Cages for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study with 1-Year Follow-Up

Patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) often suffer from years of low back pain (LBP) due to instability of the lumbar spine and the reduction of disc height. Since January 2016, we have performed oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) on 154 patients. Among these, 56 patients who suffered from DLS underwent OLIF with stand-alone cages. Forty-two patients with a follow-up time that exceeded 1-year were enrolled for this study. The forty-two patients were followed up for at least one year. Operation segments ranged from L3-4 to L4-5. All the patients were with 1-level fusion. The mean postoperative ventral-disc height and dorsal-disc height increased significantly compared with preoperative (P < 0.05). A significant postoperative increase was also observed in the mean operative segmental lordotic angle and the whole lumbar lordotic angle (P < 0.05). Compared with preoperative, the postoperative VAS significantly decreased with no significant increase in the VAS in the last follow-up. The LBP was significantly relieved. The mean postoperative VAS of LBP decreased significantly compared with the preoperative ((1.6 ± 0.8) vs. (7.8 ± 0.8)). Postoperative complications included psoas major abscess and intervertebral space infection (1/56). Except for one patient whose cage subsided during the last follow-up, the other patients had good cage position. The one whose cage collapsed complained no symptoms including LBP. OLIF with stand-alone cages should be considered as a safe and effective option which can effectively alleviate LBP for the treatment of DLS.

Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy precedes interlaminar discectomy in the efficacy and safety for lumbar disc herniation

We searched several databases from the times of their inception to 20 December 2018. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) with percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) were identified. We used a random-effects model to calculate the relative risks (RRs) of, and standardized mean differences (SMDs) between the two techniques, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Twenty-six studies with 3294 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with PEID, PETD reduced the short-term (SMD -0.68; 95% CI -1.01, -0.34; P=0.000) and long-term (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.82, -0.12; P=0.000) visual analog scale scores, blood loss (SMD -4.75; 95% CI -5.80, -3.71; P=0.000), duration of hospital stay (SMD -1.86; 95% CI -2.36, -1.37; P=0.000), and length of incision (SMD -3.93; 95% CI -5.23, -2.62; P=0.000). However, PEID was associated with a lower recurrence rate (P=0.035) and a shorter operative time (P=0.014). PETD and PEID afforded comparable excellent- and good-quality data, long- and short-term Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and complication rates. PETD treated lumbar disc herniation (LDH) more effectively than PEID. Although PETD required a longer operative time, PETD was as safe as PEID, and was associated with less blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, and a shorter incision. PETD is the best option for patients with LDH.

The Use of Anterior Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion in Spinopelvic Stabilization After High Partial Sacrectomy

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Traditionally, when a patient presents with a midline chordoma with extension to the mid-S1 body where neither S1 nerve roots can be spared, the recommendation would be to perform a total sacrectomy for en bloc resection. This procedure, however, results in a large bony defect that makes it difficult to achieve fusion across the lumbosacral and sacroiliac junction (SIJ). To help prevent this challenge in the situation described above, we propose performing a high sacrectomy for en bloc resection with placement of an anterior L5-S1 graft instead in specific situations where the tumor extends to the mid-S1 body leaving the superior aspect of S1 unaffected.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

A 56-yr-old female presented to our clinic with back pain, leg pain, urinary incontinence, and perineal numbness. She was found to have a chordoma that extended to the mid-S1 body superiorly. Her S1 nerve roots were involved extraforaminally. We performed the operation described above with no signs of hardware malfunction or tumor recurrence at 5 mo.

CONCLUSION

In patients where the sacral tumor that involves the S1 nerve roots but does not involve the superior portion of the S1 body, there continues to be unaffected SIJ to allow for arthrodesis, and an anterior approach is necessary for other indications, we recommend performing a high partial sacrectomy with placement of an anterior L5-S1 graft rather than a total sacrectomy as long as the bony resection offers ability to obtain tumor margins.

Stand-Alone Anterolateral Interbody Fusion Versus Extended Posterior Fusion for Symptomatic Adjacent-Segment Degeneration: A Retrospective Study of 2 Years' Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcome of stand-alone anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion (ALLIF) using self-locked cages in comparison with extended posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after posterior lumbar fusion.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 40 symptomatic patients with ASD who were treated with ALLIF (n = 13) or extended PLIF (n = 27) between January 2011 and January 2015. Evaluations were performed preoperatively, at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Clinical outcome measurements included visual analog scale scores for low-back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score for function assessment, Short-Form 36 Questionnaire for quality of life, and modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Radiologic outcome measurements included fusion rate, cage subsidence, disc height, and lumbar lordosis.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the baseline data for the ALLIF and PLIF groups (P > 0.05). Mean operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly decreased for the ALLIF group (P < 0.05). Postoperatively, low back and leg pain was relieved, function and quality of life were improved in both groups (P < 0.05), whereas disc height and lumbar lordosis were restored (P < 0.05). At 24-month follow-up, fusion was observed in 13 of 13 patients (100%), with 3 of 13 (23.1%) patients developing cage subsidence in the ALLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone ALLIF could achieve satisfactory safety and efficacy for the treatment of symptomatic ASD with less trauma and faster recovery, and it may serve as an alternative surgical treatment for symptomatic ASD with appropriate indication.

[Decompression by mini-open posterior approach assisted with microscope for thoracolumbar burst fracture with severe spinal canal stenosis]

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of posterior microscopic mini-open technique (MOT) decompression in patients with severe spinal canal stenosis resulting from thoracolumbar burst fractures.

Methods

The clinical data of 28 patients with severe spinal canal stenosis caused by thoracolumbar burst fractures, who were treated by posterior microscopic MOT, which performed unilateral or bilateral laminectomy, poking reduction, intervertebral bone graft via spinal canal, and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between January 2014 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 21 males and 7 females with a mean age of 42.1 years (range, 16-61 years). The involved segments included T 11 in 1 case, T 12 in 4 cases, L 1 in 14 cases, and L 2 in 9 cases. According to AO classification, there were 19 cases of type A3, 9 of type A4. According to American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grading, 12 cases were grade C, 13 grade D, and 3 grade E. The time between injury and operation was 3-7 days (mean, 3.6 days). To evaluate effectiveness, the changes in the visual analogue scale (VAS), percentage of anterior height of injured vertebrae, Cobb angle, rate of spinal compromise (RSC), and ASIA grading were analyzed.

Results

All patients were performed procedures successfully. The operation time was 135-323 minutes (mean, 216.4 minutes). The intraoperative blood loss was 80-800 mL (mean, 197.7 mL). The hospitalization time was 10-25 days (mean, 12.5 days). The incisions healed primarily, without wound infection, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, or other early complications. All the 28 patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 16.5 months). No breakage or loosening of internal fixation occurred. All fractures healed, and the healing time was 3-12 months (mean, 6.5 months). Compared with preoperative ones, the percentage of anterior height of injured vertebrae, Cobb angle, and RSC at immediate after operation and at last follow-up and the VAS scores at 1 day after operation and at last-follow were significantly improved ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the percentage of anterior height of injured vertebrae and Cobb angle between at immediate after operation and at last follow-up ( P>0.05). But the RSC at immediate after operation and VSA score at 1 day after operation were significantly improved when compared with those at last follow-up ( P<0.05). The ASIA grading at last follow-up was 1 case of grade C, 14 grade D, and 13 grade E, which was significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones ( Z=3.860, P=0.000).

Conclusion

MOT is an effective and minimal invasive treatment for thoracolumbar AO type A3 and A4 burst fractures with severe spinal canal stenosis, and it is beneficial to early rehabilitation for patients.