Does Percutaneous Lumbosacral Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Prevent Long-Term Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar Fusion?

Treatment Concept and Technical Considerations of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Decompression is a major component of surgical procedures for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). In addition to sufficient decompression to guarantee the relief of neurological pain, compensating surgical instability after wider laminectomy and foraminotomy and instrumentation with caging and fusion with grafting are performed to secure or restore the foraminal dimension and correct coronal/sagittal imbalance for longer survival of the adjacent segment. Endoscopic spinal surgery (ESS) has been developed under the flag of successful decompression while preserving structural integrity as much as possible with the help of magnification and illumination. ESS provides a technical possibility and feasibility for solving LSS by decompression alone. Recently, many endoscopic trials have been conducted to overcome conventional surgical treatment that requires wider dissection, escape inevitable complications from surgical damage, and compensate for the fusion technique. However, biportal ESS has some technical limitations, including clinical difficulties in accessibility for more moderate to severe stenosis and challenges for complicated conditions with segmental ventral slip, isthmic defect, stenosis combined with foraminal stenosis or foraminal disk rupture, or degenerative segmental scoliosis with disk height collapsing and endplate fatigue fracture. Because decompression alone is a skill for eliminating pathologies, there is no function of preserving degenerative structure or stopping the recurrence of disk degeneration or subsidence. This review of clinical reports investigated the possibility of biportal ESS for treating degenerative lumbar disorders by sufficient decompression and adequate elimination of various pathologies and decreasing technical complications. The results of this study may help develop better innovative spinal surgical techniques in the near future.

Biomedical Applications of Titanium Alloys: A Comprehensive Review

Titanium alloys have emerged as the most successful metallic material to ever be applied in the field of biomedical engineering. This comprehensive review covers the history of titanium in medicine, the properties of titanium and its alloys, the production technologies used to produce biomedical implants, and the most common uses for titanium and its alloys, ranging from orthopedic implants to dental prosthetics and cardiovascular devices. At the core of this success lies the combination of machinability, mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and corrosion resistance. This unique combination of useful traits has positioned titanium alloys as an indispensable material for biomedical engineering applications, enabling safer, more durable, and more efficient treatments for patients affected by various kinds of pathologies. This review takes an in-depth journey into the inherent properties that define titanium alloys and which of them are advantageous for biomedical use. It explores their production techniques and the fabrication methodologies that are utilized to machine them into their final shape. The biomedical applications of titanium alloys are then categorized and described in detail, focusing on which specific advantages titanium alloys are present when compared to other materials. This review not only captures the current state of the art, but also explores the future possibilities and limitations of titanium alloys applied in the biomedical field.

Reoperation Rates Due to Adjacent Segment Disease Following Primary 1 to 2-Level Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of the approach of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF; open vs . minimally invasive (MIS)] on reoperation rates due to ASD at 2 to 4-year follow-up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adjacent segment degeneration is a complication of lumbar fusion surgery, which may progress to adjacent segment disease (ASD) and cause debilitating postoperative pain potentially requiring additional operative management for relief. MIS TLIF surgery has been introduced to minimize this complication but the impact on ASD incidence is unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For a cohort of patients undergoing 1 or 2-level primary TLIF between 2013 and 2019, patient demographics and follow-up outcomes were collected and compared among patients who underwent open versus MIS TLIF using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fischer exact test, and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in revision rates due to ASD between MIS and open TLIFs at 2 (5.8% vs . 15.4%, P =0.021) and 3 (8% vs . 23.2%, P =0.03) year follow-up, with open TLIFs demonstrating significantly higher revision rates. The surgical approach was the only independent predictor of reoperation rates at both 2 and 3-year follow-ups (2 yr, P =0.009; 3 yr, P =0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Open TLIF was found to have a significantly higher rate of reoperation due to ASD compared with the MIS approach. In addition, the surgical approach (MIS vs . open) seems to be an independent predictor of reoperation rates.

Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease in Short Segment Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common problem after lumbar spinal fusions. Ways to reduce the rates of ASD are highly sought after to reduce the need for reoperation.

OBJECTIVE

To find predisposing factors of ASD after lumbar interbody fusions, especially in mismatch of pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusions of less than 4 levels from June 2015 to July 2020 with at least 1 year of follow-up and in those who had obtained postoperative standing X-rays.

RESULTS

We found 243 patients who fit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen patients (5.8%) developed ASD, at a median of 24 months. Postoperative lumbar lordosis was significantly higher in the non-ASD cohort (median 46.4° ± 1.4° vs 36.9° ± 3.6°, P < .001), pelvic tilt was significantly lower in the non-ASD cohort (16.0° ± 0.66° vs 20.3° ± 2.4°, P = .002), PI-LL mismatch was significantly lower in the non-ASD cohort (5.28° ± 1.0° vs 17.1° ± 2.0°, P < .001), and age-appropriate PI-LL mismatch was less common in the non-ASD cohort (34 patients [14.8%] vs 13 [92.9%] of patients with high mismatch, P < .001). Using multivariate analysis, greater PI-LL mismatch was predictive of ASD (95% odds ratio CI = 1.393-2.458, P < .001) and age-appropriate PI-LL mismatch was predictive of ASD (95% odds ratio CI = 10.8-970.4, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Higher PI-LL mismatch, both age-independent and when adjusted for age, after lumbar interbody fusion was predictive for developing ASD. In lumbar degenerative disease, correction of spinopelvic parameters should be a main goal of surgical correction.

Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive versus open lumbar fusion: a minimum 10-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The object of this study was to compare, after a long-term follow-up, the incidence and features of adjacent segment disease (ASDis) following lumbar fusion surgery performed via an open technique using conventional interbody fusion plus transpedicular screw fixation or a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) using a tubular retractor together with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with a follow-up period > 10 years who had undergone instrumented lumbar fusion at the L4-5 level between January 2004 and December 2010. The patients were divided into an open surgery group and MIS group based on the surgical method performed. Baseline characteristics and radiological findings, including factors related to ASDis, were compared between the two groups. Additionally, the incidence of ASDis and related details, including diagnosis, time to diagnosis, and treatment, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 119 patients who had undergone lumbar fusion at the L4-5 level in the study period, 32 were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. The remaining 87 patients were included as the final study cohort and were divided into an open group (n = 44) and MIS group (n = 43). The mean follow-up period was 10.50 (range 10.0-14.0) years in the open group and 10.16 (range 10.0-13.0) years in the MIS group. The overall facet joint violation rate was significantly higher in the open group than in the MIS group (54.5% vs 30.2%, p = 0.022). However, in terms of adjacent segment degeneration, there were no significant differences in corrected disc height, segmental angle, range of motion, or degree of listhesis of the adjacent segments between the two groups during follow-up. The overall incidence of ASDis was 33.3%, with incidences of 31.8% in the open group and 34.9% in the MIS group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.822). Additionally, detailed diagnosis and treatment factors were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After a minimum 10-year follow-up, the incidence of ASDis did not differ significantly between patients who had undergone open fusion and those who had undergone MIS fusion at the L4-5 level.

Can Indirect Decompression Reduce Adjacent Segment Degeneration and the Associated Reoperation Rate After Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess and compare the rate of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg), adjacent segment disease, and related reoperations between patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion surgery using indirect or direct decompression.

METHODS

On the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to identify and analyze studies that compared the rate of ASDeg, adjacent segment disease, and related reoperations between indirect and direct decompression techniques. Indirect decompression included anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, and oblique lateral interbody fusion, whereas direct decompression included posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

RESULTS

Seven studies including a total of 576 patients (indirect: 314; direct: 262) were identified. The pooled rates of ASDeg were 19.4% (45/232) and 34.9% (66/189) for indirect and direct decompression, respectively. A fixed-effects model showed 0.34 times lower odds of developing ASDeg in the indirect decompression group (odds ratio = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.20, 0.57). The pooled incidence of reoperation was 2.5% (8/314) and 6.1% (16/262) for indirect and direct decompression, respectively. A fixed-effects model showed 0.40 times lower odds of reoperation from ASDeg in the indirect decompression group (odds ratio = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.89). The pooled mean difference for the segmental lordosis angle was 1.80 degrees (95% CI = 0.74, 2.86) and 7.11 degrees (95% CI = 4.47, 9.74) for total lumbar lordosis angle, favoring indirect decompression.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect decompression showed lower odds of developing ASDeg and undergoing reoperation for ASDeg after lumbar interbody fusion surgery in this meta-analysis. However, the limited number and quality of the included studies should be considered when interpreting the results.