Comparison of Navigated Expandable Vertebral Cage with Conventional Expandable Vertebral Cage for Minimally Invasive Lumbar/Thoracolumbar Corpectomy

Our C-Arm-Free Minimally Invasive Technique for Spinal Surgery: The Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Spine-Based on Our Experiences

Background and Objectives: The implementation of intraoperative imaging in the procedures performed under the guidance of the same finds its history dating back to the early 1990s. This practice was abandoned due to many deficits and practicality. Later, fluoroscopy-dependent techniques were developed and have been used even in the present time, albeit with several disadvantages. With the recent advancement of several complex surgical techniques, which demand higher accuracy and are in conjunction with the existence of radiation exposure hazard, C-arm-free techniques were introduced. In this review study, we aim to demonstrate the various types of these techniques performed in our hospital. Materials and Methods: We have retrospectively analyzed and collected imaging data of C-arm-free, minimally invasive techniques performed in our hospital. The basic steps of the procedures are described, following with a discussion, along with the literature of findings, enlisting the merits and demerits. Results: MIS techniques of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine that do not require the use of the C-arm can offer excellent results with high precision. However, several disadvantages may prevail in certain circumstances such as the navigation accuracy problem where in the possibility of perioperative complications comes a high morbidity rate. Conclusions: The accustomedness of performing these techniques requires a steep learning curve. The increase in accuracy and the decrease in radiation exposure in complex spinal surgery can overcome the burden hazards and can prove to be cost-effective.

Spinal Navigation for Lateral Instrumentation of the Thoracolumbar Spine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Three-dimensional imaging-based navigation in spine surgery is mostly applied for pedicle screw placement. However, its potential reaches beyond. In this study, we analyzed the incorporation of spinal navigation for lateral instrumentation of the thoracolumbar spine in clinical routine at a high-volume spine center.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for lateral instrumentation were prospectively enrolled. A reference array was attached to the pelvis, and a computed tomography scan was acquired intraoperatively. A control computed tomography scan was routinely performed after final cage placement, replacing conventional 2-dimensional X-ray imaging.

RESULTS

145 cases were enrolled from April to October 2021 with a median of 1 (1-4) level being instrumented. Indications for surgery were trauma (35.9%), spinal infection (31.7%), primary and secondary tumors of the spine (17.2%), and degenerative spine disease (15.2%). The duration of surgery after the first scan was 98 ± 41 (20-342) minutes. In total, 190 cages were implanted (94 expandable cages for vertebral body replacement (49.5%) and 96 cages for interbody fusion [50.5%]). Navigation was successfully performed in 139 cases (95.9%). The intraoperative mental load was rated on a scale from 0 to 150 (maximal effort) by the surgeons, showing a moderate effort (median 30 [10-120]).

CONCLUSION

Three-dimensional imaging-based spinal navigation can easily be incorporated in clinical routine and serves as a reliable tool to achieve precise implant placement in lateral instrumentation of the spine. It helps to minimize radiation exposure to the surgical staff.

Comparison of C-Arm-Free Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (OLIF51) with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (TLIF51) for Adult Spinal Deformity

Background and Objectives: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, L5-S1 lordosis is very important factor. The main objective of the research is to retrospectively compare symptomatic presentation and radiological presentation in the sequelae of oblique lumbar inter-body spinal fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for ASD. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 54 patients who underwent corrective spinal fusion for ASD between October 2019 and January 2021. Thirteen patients underwent OLIF51 (average 74.6 years old, group O) and 41 patients underwent TLIF51 (average 70.5 years old, group T). Mean follow-up period was 23.9 months for group O and 28.9 months for group T, ranging from 12 to 43 months. Clinical and radiographic outcomes are assessed using values including visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiographic evaluation was also collected preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: Surgical time in group O was less than that in group T (356 min vs. 492 min, p = 0.003). However, intraoperative blood loss of both groups were not significantly different (1016 mL vs. 1252 mL, p = 0.274). Changes in VAS and ODI were similar in both groups. L5-S1 angle gain and L5-S1 height gain in group O were significantly better than those of group T (9.4° vs. 1.6°, p = 0.0001, 4.2 mm vs. 0.8 mm, p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were not significantly different in both groups, but surgical time in OLIF51 was significantly less than that in TLIF51. The radiographic outcomes showed that OLIF51 created more L5-S1 lordosis and L5-S1 disc height compared with TLIF 51.