Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion produce leg pain?-Results from a RCT

Effectiveness of Interspinous Process Devices in Managing Adjacent Segment Degeneration Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a significant complication following lumbar spinal fusion, often necessitating further surgical interventions and impairing patient outcomes. Interspinous process devices were introduced as an alternative treatment for spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis and can potentially reduce the incidence of ASDd. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of interspinous process devices or IPDs in managing ASD following a previous spinal fusion compared to traditional fusion techniques. Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, were queried for studies assessing IPDs against traditional lumbar fusion methods for managing ASD after previous lumbar fusion, which had been published between January 2014 and the present. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Results: Seven retrospective cohort studies involving 546 patients met the inclusion criteria. The analysis revealed that IPDs were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of ASD (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.51, p < 0.0001, and I2 = 0% after excluding outliers). The ODI demonstrated a non-significant trend towards improved outcomes with IPDs at the 2-year follow-up (SMD = -3.94; 95% CI: -11.72 to 3.85). Range of motion (ROM) was better preserved with IPDs compared to fusion (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.41, p = 1.00, I2 = 60%). The visual analogue scale or VAS lower back pain scores were significantly reduced at the 2-year follow-up (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI: -1.18 to -0.19, p = 0.006, and I2 = 74%). VAS leg pain showed consistent improvements (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI: -0.63 to 0.04). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower with IPDs (SMD = -2.07; 95% CI: -3.27 to -0.87, p = 0.0007, and I2 = 95%), and operation times were shorter (SMD = -2.22, 95% CI: -3.31 to -1.12, p < 0.0001, and I2 = 94%). Conclusions: The judicious use of IPDs might benefit a subset of patients, particularly those who are not suitable candidates for major corrective surgery.

Biomaterials for Interbody Fusion in Bone Tissue Engineering

In recent years, interbody fusion cages have played an important role in interbody fusion surgery for treating diseases like disc protrusion and spondylolisthesis. However, traditional cages cannot achieve satisfactory results due to their unreasonable design, poor material biocompatibility, and induced osteogenesis ability, limiting their application. There are currently 3 ways to improve the fusion effect, as follows. First, the interbody fusion cage is designed to facilitate bone ingrowth through the preliminary design. Second, choose interbody fusion cages made of different materials to meet the variable needs of interbody fusion. Finally, complete post-processing steps, such as coating the designed cage, to achieve a suitable osseointegration microstructure, and add other bioactive materials to achieve the most suitable biological microenvironment of bone tissue and improve the fusion effect. The focus of this review is on the design methods of interbody fusion cages, a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of various materials, the influence of post-processing techniques and additional materials on interbody fusion, and the prospects for the future development of interbody fusion cages.

Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The purpose of this study is to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases.

Design

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2013 through December 2019.

Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare lumbar interbody fusion with posterolateral fusion (PLF) and/or other lumbar interbody fusion were included for the review.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar spinal diseases.

Results

Of 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other surgical techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate [RR = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.72-0.97), p = 0.02, I 2 = 0.0%] at 1-year follow-up whereas there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow-up [RR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.96-1.18), p = 0.27, I 2 = 69.0%]. The estimated RR of total adverse events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI = 0.59-1.38), p = 0.63, I 2 = 0.0%] was similar to no fusion, PLF, PLIF, and XLIF groups, and revision rate [RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.34-1.79), p = 0.56, I 2 = 39.0%] was similar to PLF and XLIF groups. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (no fusion, ALIF, PLF, PLIF, XLIF) [MD = 31.88 (95% CI = 5.33-58.44), p = 0.02, I 2 = 92.0%]. There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of blood loss (no fusion, PLIF, PLF) and clinical outcomes (PLF).

Conclusions

Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, TLIF has a similar fusion rate, clinical outcomes, parameters concerning operation and complications to no fusion, PLF, and other interbody fusion (PLIF, ALIF, XLIF).

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020186858.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.