Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Clinical Observation of 10-mm Endoscopic Minimally Invasive Interlaminar Decompression in the Treatment of Ossified Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

PURPOSE

This study aims to observe the safety and effectiveness of 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression in the treatment of ossified lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 50 consecutive patients with ossified lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent minimally invasive interlaminar decompression with 10-mm endoscope. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Visual analog scale scores, Oswestry disability index scores, and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. The lateral recess angle, real spinal canal area, and effective intervertebral foramen area were used to assess the effect of decompression.

RESULTS

The mean age of all patients was 59.0 ± 12.3 years. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 43.7 ± 8.7 minutes and <20 ml, respectively. Two years after surgery, the leg pain Visual analog scale score decreased from 7.4 ± 1.0 to 1.6 ± 0.6 (P < 0.05) and the Oswestry disability index score decreased from 63.8 ± 7.6 to 21.7 ± 3.4 (P < 0.05). The lateral recess angle, real spinal canal area and effective intervertebral foramen area were significantly larger than before surgery (P < 0.05). The overall excellent and good rate at the last follow-up was 92.0% according to the modified Macnab criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The 10-mm endoscopic minimally invasive interlaminar decompression can safely and effectively remove the ossification in the spinal canal and achieve adequate decompression in patients with ossified lumbar spinal stenosis.

Is fracture management merely a physical process? Exploring the psychological effects of internal and external fixation

BACKGROUND

Internal and external fixation are common surgical procedures for treating fractures. However, the impact of different surgical approaches (including internal and external fixations) on patients' psychological status and Quality of Life (QoL) is rarely examined. Herein, we aimed to investigate the effects of internal and external fixation on anxiety, depression, insomnia, and overall mental and physical health in Distal Radius Fractures (DRF) patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on 96 fracture patients who underwent internal fixation (57 patients) or external fixation (39 patients). The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire were used to assess the patients' pain, anxiety, depression, sleep, and QoL before surgery and at seven days, one month, and three months post-surgery.

RESULTS

The VAS scores were significantly lower in the Internal Fixation Group (IFG) than in the External Fixation Group (EFG) on the seventh day and one month postoperatively (P < 0.05). Although both groups showed no significant anxiety, depression, or insomnia before surgery (P > 0.05), the EFG showed significantly higher HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores than the IFG at seven days and one and three months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Additionally, changes in HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores were most significant at day seven post-surgery in the EFG (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the average Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores before surgery (P > 0.05). However, both groups showed positive changes in PCS and MCS scores at postoperative day seven and one and three months postoperatively, with the IFG having significantly higher average PCS and MCS scores compared to the EFG (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to external fixation, internal fixation did not significantly impact patients' emotions regarding anxiety and depression in the early postoperative period, and physical and mental health recovery was better during the postoperative rehabilitation period. Furthermore, when there are no absolute indications, the impact on patients' psychological well-being should be considered as one of the key factors in the treatment plan during surgical approach selection.

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.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

RESULTS

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Comparison between OLIF and MISTLIF in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an age-, sex-, and segment-matched cohort study

To compare outcomes after oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach for treating mild to moderate symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single-level (L4/5) OLIF with an age-, sex-, and segment-matched MISTLIF with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach cohort. Perioperative data were collected for the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, drainage in the first postoperative day, postoperative hospital stay, cost, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and complications. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in posterior intervertebral space height (PISH), intervertebral space foramen height (IFH), intervertebral foramen area (IFA), and area of the spinal canal (ASC). Clinical and psychological outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). 35 OLIF patients were compared with 35 MISTLIF patients in L4/5 DLSS. The OLIF group had shorter bedtime, postoperative hospital stays, less intraoperative and postoperative blood loss (all P < 0.05), but had more times of intraoperative fluoroscopy, longer operative time, and higher cost (all P < 0.05). The complication rates were equivalent (OLIF vs MISTLIF: 22.86% vs 17.14%). PISH (11.94 ± 1.78 mm vs 9.42 ± 1.94 mm, P < 0.05), IFH (23.87 ± 3.05 mm vs 21.41 ± 2.95 mm, P < 0.05), and IFA (212.14 ± 51.82 mm2 vs 177.07 ± 51.73 mm2, P < 0.05) after surgery were significantly increased in the OLIF group. The ASC was increased significantly after the operation in both groups, but the ASC in the MISTLIF group was increased significantly more than that in the OLIF group (450.04 ± 66.66 mm2 vs 171.41 ± 58.55 mm2, P < 0.05). The lumbar VAS scores at 1 month (1.89 ± 0.87 vs 2.34 ± 0.84, P = 0.028) and 6 months (1.23 ± 0.97 vs 1.80 ± 0.99, P = 0.018) after operation in the OLIF group were significantly lower. There were no significant differences in lower extremity VAS and ODI scores between the two groups. Compared with MISTLIF group, HADS scores on postoperative day 3 (2.91 ± 1.46 vs 4.89 ± 1.78, P < 0.05) and prior to hospital discharge (PTD) (2.54 ± 1.38 vs 3.80 ± 1.78, P = 0.002) in the OLIF group were decreased significantly. OLIF showed more advantages of less surgical invasion, lower incidence of postoperative low back pain, faster postoperative recovery, and less anxiety compared with MISTLIF. Regardless of cost, OLIF seems to be a better option to treat mild to moderate symptomatic DLSS.

Does Baseline Mental Health Influence Outcomes among Workers' Compensation Claimants Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE

This study investigated the influence of preoperative mental health on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) among workers' compensation (WC) recipients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

No studies have evaluated the impact of preoperative mental functioning on outcomes following MIS TLIF among WC claimants.

METHODS

WC recipients undergoing single-level MIS TLIF were identified. PROMs of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Physical and Mental Composite Scale (SF-12 PCS/MCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function evaluated subjects preoperatively/postoperatively. Subjects were grouped according to preoperative SF-12 MCS: <41 vs. ≥41. Demographic/perioperative variables, PROMs, and MCID were compared using inferential statistics. Multiple regression was used to account for differences in spinal pathology.

RESULTS

The SF-12 MCS <41 and SF-12 MCS ≥41 groups included 48 and 45 patients, respectively. Significant differences in ΔPROMs were observed at SF-12 MCS at all timepoints, except at 6 months (p≤0.041, all). The SF-12 MCS <41 group had worse preoperative to 6-months SF-12 MCS, 12-weeks/6-months VAS back, 12-week VAS leg, and preoperative to 6-months ODI (p≤0.029, all). The SF-12 MCS <41 group had greater MCID achievement for overall ODI and 6-weeks/1-year/overall SF-12 MCS (p≤0.043, all); the SF-12 MCS ≥41 group had greater attainment for 6-month VAS back (p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Poorer mental functioning adversely affected the baseline and intermediate postoperative quality-of-life outcomes pertaining to mental health, back pain, and disability among WC recipients undergoing lumbar fusion. However, outcomes did not differ 1-2 years after surgery. While MCID achievement for pain and physical function was largely unaffected by preoperative mental health score, WC recipients with poorer baseline mental health demonstrated higher rates of overall clinically meaningful improvements for disability and mental health.

Contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws combined with unilateral MIS-TLIF vs. open TLIF in the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases: A five years retrospective study and finite element analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, feasibility and biomechanical stability of contralateral bridge fixation of freehand minimally invasive pedicle screws (Freehand MIPS) combined with unilateral minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) (smile-face surgery) and open TLIF for the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).

Methods

From January 2013 to January 2016, clinical data of multi-segmental (2- or 3-level) LDDs receiving smile-face surgery or open TLIF were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The back and leg pain VAS and ODI were used to assess clinical outcomes preoperatively and postoperatively. The MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the satisfaction of patient. The disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis angle (SLA) were measured before and after surgery. We used patient's CT data to establish the finite element model of smile-face surgery and open TLIF, and analyze biomechanical stability of two methods.

Results

Smile-face surgery group showed shorter operation time, shorter incision, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay than open TLIF (P &lt; 0.05). The back VAS in smile-face surgery group was significantly lower than that in open TLIF immediately and 3 months after surgery, and no significant difference was observed 1 year, 2 years and 5 years after surgery. There was no significant difference in the leg pain VAS and ODI between both groups after surgery. No significant difference was observed between two groups in the DH, LL and SLA. At 5-year follow-up, grade I or II fusion was achieved in 99.00% (100/101) segments of smile-face surgery group and 97.67% (84/86) segments of open TLIF group according to Bridwell system. The complication rate of open TLIF was higher than that of smile-face surgery (24.32% vs. 0%, P &lt; 0.01). After verification, the established finite element model can accurately simulate the biological structure of lumbar spine and there was no significant difference in biomechanical stability between two methods.

Conclusions

Smile-face surgery has some advantages over open TLIF including smaller aggression, less blood loss, and lower cost, indicating that it is a good choice of treatment for multi-segmental LDDs. Both methods can achieve good biomechanical stability.

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) compared with MIS-TLIF for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disease in elderly patients: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PTES for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) including lumbar disc herniation, lateral recess stenosis, intervertebral foraminal stenosis and central spinal canal stenosis in elderly patients compared with MIS-TLIF.

Methods

From November 2016 to December 2018, 84 elderly patients (>70 years old) of single-level LDD with neurologic symptoms underwent the surgical treatment. 45 patients were treated using PTES under local anesthesia in group 1 and 39 patients treated using MIS-TLIF in group 2. Preoperative, postoperative back and leg pain were evaluated using Visual analog scale (VAS) and the results were determined with Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 2-year follow-up. All complications were recorded.

Results

PTES group shows significantly less operation time (55.6 ± 9.7 min vs. 97.2 ± 14.3 min, P < 0.001), less blood loss [11(2-32) ml vs. 70(35-300) ml, P < 0.001], shorter incision length (8.4 ± 1.4 mm vs. 40.6 ± 2.7 mm, P < 0.001), less fluoroscopy frequency [5(5-10) times vs. 7(6-11) times, P < 0.001] and shorter hospital stay[3(2-4) days vs. 7(5-18) days, P < 0.001] than MIS-TLIF group does. Although there was no statistical difference of leg VAS scores between two groups, back VAS scores in PTES group were significantly lower than those in MIS-TLIF group during follow-ups after surgery (P < 0.001). ODI of PTES group was also significantly lower than that of MIS-TLIF group at 2-year follow-up (12.3 ± 3.6% vs. 15.7 ± 4.8%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both PTES and MIS-TLIF show favorable clinical outcomes for LDD in elderly patients. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PTES has the advantages including less damage of paraspinal muscle and bone, less blood loss, faster recovery, lower complication rate, which can be performed under local anesthesia.

The Efficacy and Safety of Epsilon-Aminocaproic Acid for Perioperative Blood Management in Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Perioperative blood loss is a major concern in spinal fusion surgery and often requires blood transfusion. A large amount of perioperative blood loss might increase the risks of various perioperative complications. Recent clinical studies have focused on the perioperative administration of epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) in spinal fusion surgery. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EACA in spinal fusion surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were systematically searched up to April 2021. Data on perioperative blood loss, blood transfusion, and complications were extracted and analyzed by RevMan software.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled studies comprising 398 patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery were included in this systematic review. Compared with the control group, the EACA group had significantly lower total perioperative blood loss, postoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin, postoperative blood transfusion units, total blood transfusion units, and postoperative red blood cell transfusion units. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the EACA and control groups in intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion units, intraoperative crystalloid administered, hospital stays, operative time, perioperative respiratory complications, and wound bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EACA in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery is effective in perioperative hemostasis without increasing the incidence of postoperative complications. However, more large-scale trials are needed to examine the long-term adverse side effects of EACA in spinal fusion surgery.