Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

A New Pilot Hole Preparation System for Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement - A Randomized Controlled Study.

Randomized controlled study. To introduce a new pilot hole preparation system for percutaneous pedicle screw placement and investigate its efficiency and safety in comparison with the conventional method. Placing screws accurately, rapidly, and safely with less radiation exposure is critical for minimally invasive Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). Optimizing pilot hole preparation instruments has important clinical implications. A total of 60 patients (180 screws) were included in this study. All patients were randomized into two groups (new system vs conventional method) and performed single-level minimally invasive percutaneous fixation, interbody fusion, and unilateral decompression. Basic information, time of pilot hole preparation, time of screw placement, and fluoroscopy time were recorded. Screw placement accuracy was graded based on the Gertzbein-Robbins scale, and the angle between the screw axis and the pedicle axis was collected in postoperative CT. There was no statistical difference in basic information between the two groups. The mean time of single pilot hole preparation was 4.08±1.01 min in the new system group and 5.34±1.30 min in the conventional method group (P<0.001). The time of single screw placement was significantly shorter in the new system group (0.82±0.20 vs 1.72±0.33min), and the fluoroscopy time was also less in the new system group (13.70±3.42 vs 19.95±5.50 s) (P<0.001). Screw placement accuracy assessment showed that there were 85 (94.45%) A-grade screws in the new system group while 76 (84.44%) A-grade screws in the conventional method group (P=0.027). The new pilot hole preparation system has shown significant reductions in the time of pilot hole preparation, time of screw placement, and radiation exposure, and has good clinical application value.

Clinical Effectiveness and Biochemical Impacts of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, and biochemical impacts of two spinal surgery techniques: open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (open-TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF). Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature up to April 2023 was conducted across several databases, including PUBMED, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CNKI. The search focused on the terms "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion" or "TLIF" combined with "minimally invasive" or "open." From this search, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results: The meta-analysis revealed that MIS-TLIF is associated with increased intraoperative radiological exposure but reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased postoperative drainage volumes, shorter hospital stays, and improved outcomes as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Biochemically, MIS-TLIF is linked to lower levels of CRP, creatine kinase-muscle/brain (CK-MM), and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) at 24 hours post-operation compared to open TLIF. Conclusions: MIS-TLIF offers superior clinical effectiveness, improved safety profiles, and reduced muscular injury relative to conventional open TLIF. These findings suggest that MIS-TLIF may be a preferable option in spinal surgery settings where the reduction of tissue trauma and rapid recovery are prioritized.

Comparison of the short-term efficacy of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for the treatment of two-segment lumbar degenerative disease

BackgroundThis study retrospectively compared short-term clinical outcomes and complications of minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MIS-TLIF)and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion(Endo-LIF))for two-segmental lumbar degenerative disease, aiming to guide spine surgeons in selecting surgical approaches.MethodsFrom January 2019 to December 2023, 30 patients were enrolled,15 in the MIS-TLIF group and 15 in the Endo-LIF group. All patients were followed up for more than 3 months after surgery and the following information was recorded: (1)surgery time, difference in hemoglobin between preoperative and postoperative, surgical costs, first time out of bed after operation, postoperative hospitalization time, postoperative complication; (2) ODI score (The Oswestry Disability Index), leg and back VAS score (Visual Analogue Scale), and lumbar vertebra JOA score (Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores); (3) MacNab score at final follow-up to assess clinical outcome, CT to evaluate lumbar fusion.ResultsThere were significant differences between the two groups regarding operation time and cost, with the MIS-TLIF group performing significantly better. Intraoperative bleeding was considerably less in the Endo-LIF group compared to the MIS-TLIF group. However, there were no significant differences in the time of the first postoperative ambulation, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in preoperative VAS, ODI, and JOA between the two surgical groups There were no significant differences in VAS(leg), ODI, and JOA scores between the two groups before and at 1 day,7 days, 1 month, 3 months and final follow-up. However, at 1 day postoperatively, the VAS( back)score in the Endo-LIF group was lower than that in the MIS-TLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant. At the final follow-up, all patients achieved grade III and above according to the Bridwell criteria, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical groups compared to each other. According to the MacNab score at the final follow-up, the excellent rate was 80.00% in the Endo-LIF group and 73.33% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionThere was no significant difference in short-term efficacy and safety between Endo-LIF and MIS-TLIF for two-segment degenerative lumbar diseases. MIS-TLIF has a shorter operative time and lower costs, while Endo-LIF causes less tissue damage, blood loss, and early postoperative pain, aiding long-term recovery. Both MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF are promising for treating two-segment lumbar degenerative disease. The choice of a surgical procedure depends on the patient’s financial situation, their ability to tolerate surgery, and the surgeon’s expertise.

The efficacy of 3D gait analysis to evaluate surgical (and rehabilitation) outcome after degenerative lumbar surgery

BackgroundLumbar degenerative conditions are a major cause of back pain and disability in individuals aged 45 and above. Gait analysis utilizes sensor technology to collect movement data, aiding in the evaluation of various gait aspects like spatiotemporal parameters, joint angles, neuromuscular activity, and joint forces. It is widely used in conditions such as cerebral palsy and knee osteoarthritis. This research aims to assess the effectiveness of 3D gait analysis in evaluating surgical outcomes and postoperative rehabilitation for lumbar degenerative disorders.MethodsA prospective self-controlled before-after study (n = 85) carried out at our Hospital (Sep 2018 - Dec 2021) utilized a 3D motion analysis system to analyze gait in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. The study focused on the multifidus muscle, a crucial spinal muscle, during a minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery conducted by Shandong Weigao Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Pre- and postoperative assessments included time-distance parameters (gait speed, stride frequency, stride length, stance phase), hip flexion angle, and stride angle. Changes in 3D gait parameters post-surgery and during rehabilitation were examined. Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to assess relationships with the visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Patient sagittal alignment was evaluated using “Surgimap” software from two types of lateral radiographs to obtain parameters like pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), intervertebral space height (DH), posterior height of the intervertebral space (PDH) at the operative segment, and anterior height of the intervertebral space (ADH).ResultsBy the 6th week post-operation, significant improvements were observed in the VAS score, JOA score, and ODI score of the patients compared to preoperative values (P < 0.05), along with notable enhancements in 3D gait quantification parameters (P < 0.05). Pearson correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between improvements in 3D gait quantification parameters and VAS score, JOA score, and ODI value (all P < 0.001).Conclusion3D gait analysis is a valuable tool for evaluating the efficacy of surgery and rehabilitation training in patients.

Percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion results in less perioperative opioid usage compared to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single institution, multi-surgeon retrospective study.

Ultra-minimally invasive percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion (percLIF) has been demonstrated to further minimize tissue trauma and has been associated with improved clinical outcomes including decreased blood loss, post-operative pain and length of stay when compared to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery. A single-institution retrospective study was conducted to investigate whether 1-level percLIF is associated with decreased narcotic consumption compared to 1-level MIS-TLIF in the first 24-hour following surgery. A retrospective study of patients undergoing either single-level percLIF or MIS-TLIF from January 2018 to December 2021. Opioid consumption in the 24-hour following surgery was converted into total morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The primary outcome used univariate and multivariate regression analysis to compare MME consumption between the MIS-TLIF and percLIF groups. Secondary outcome variables included, estimated blood loss, total intraoperative MME, MME at discharge, MME at 30 days post-op, exiting nerve root injury, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) visual analogue scale (VAS) score at handoff, time to first ambulation, distance ambulated post-operative day one and hospital length of stay. A total of 51 patients (21 percLIF vs. 30 MIS-TLIF) were included in the study. Univariate regression analysis revealed that on average patients who underwent percLIF had a 24-hour postoperative MME -50.8 mg (95% CI: -91.6, -10) lower than those who had MIS-TLIF (P=0.02). On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for sex and age, 24-hour postoperative MME closely failed to meet statistical significance (P=0.06) with an average of -40.8 mg (95% CI: -83.2, 1.6) MME in percLIF patients compared to MIS-TLIF. There was no statistically significant difference in MME between MIS-TLIF and percLIF at the time of discharge and at 30 days post-op. In the setting of the current opioid epidemic in the United States and increased numbers of patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion, spine surgeons must continue to do their part helping reduce the need for opioid prescriptions for postoperative pain management. New "ultra-MIS" techniques such as percLIF allow surgeons to further decrease tissue trauma, which should lead to reduced need for post-operative narcotic requirements.

Screw Stimulation Thresholds for Neuromonitoring in Minimally Invasive Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLLIF): A Correlational Study.

This study presents findings from an investigation into the correlation of neuromonitoring techniques in minimally invasive lumbar fusions and their open counterparts regarding acceptable thresholds for screw stimulation. The threshold for acceptable stimulation value for open surgery has been established. The study compared acceptable thresholds for open pedicle screws where there is more connection between the screw and the soft tissue. The neuromonitoring data of 17 patients who underwent oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) procedures between September 2023 to May 2024 were reviewed. Neuromonitoring was conducted throughout surgeries, recording stimulation thresholds for pedicle screws insulated and uninsulated, to simulate the environment of a screw during open and minimally invasive surgery respectively. Patients' BMI was also collected for potential correlation analysis. Results indicate a discernible correlation between stimulation thresholds in open and minimally invasive surgeries, but no definitive correlation with BMI due to sample size limitations. Though a significant correlation between the two stimulating styles is apparent, there is a good correlation to suggest whatthreshold should determine astandard stimulation threshold for minimally invasive surgeries. The study emphasizes the need for refined neuromonitoring strategies in minimally invasive spinal fusion (MISF) surgeries to ensure patient safety and surgical effectiveness. Further research with larger cohorts is recommended to establish optimized protocols that have a clearly defined amplitude for MISF thresholds.

A novel surgical approach using the "lateral corridor" for minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: a clinical series and technical note.

The minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MI-OLIF) L5-S1 was introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional fusion techniques, however, MI-OLIF is not possible using the standard method due to vascular structures in some cases. We aimed to introduce the "lateral corridor" and report the details of the surgical technique with a clinical case series. We utilized the lateral access route of the left common iliac vein and named it the "lateral corridor", to distinguish the technique from the standard technique (central corridor). The type and frequency of branch vessels that required additional manipulations were reviewed, and the frequency of intraoperative vascular injury was investigated. Among the 107 patients who underwent MI-OLIF L5-S1, 26 patients (24.3%) who received the "lateral corridor" technique were included. Branch vessel ligation was required in 42.3% of the patients. The types of branch vessels that required ligation were seven cases (26.9%) of the iliolumbar vein (ILV) and six cases (23.1%) of ascending lumbar vein (ALV). The ILV and ALV were ligated in two cases. None of the patients developed intraoperative vascular injuries. We introduced the "lateral corridor" as an alternative approach for MI-OLIF L5-S1, implemented it in 24.3% of the patient cohort, and reported favorable outcomes devoid of vascular complications. The "lateral corridor" necessitated ligation of the ILV or ALV in 42.3% of cases. The "lateral corridor" approach appears to be a promising surgical technique, offering feasibility even in instances where the vascular anatomy precludes the employment of the conventional approach.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Obese Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of obese patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF. The perioperative benefits of minimally invasive surgery in obese patients have been described. However, there is limited literature on the patient-reported outcomes (PROs), satisfaction and return to work following MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in this subgroup of patients. Obese patients (BMI ≥30.0kg/m2) who underwent a primary, one- to two-level open and MIS-TLIF were stratified and matched using propensity scoring. Operative time, length of stay and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-36 Physical Component Score, Mental Component Score, Visual Analogue Scale for back pain and leg pain were compared at each postoperative time point. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient satisfaction and return to work were also assessed. Revision procedures were recorded at mean 10±3.3 years follow-up. In total, 236 obese patients were included: 118 open TLIF and 118 MIS-TLIF. Length of stay was longer in the Open TLIF cohort and there was a trend towards a higher complication rate. However, there was no difference in operative time, transfusions or readmissions. Patients who underwent open TLIF reported worse ODI (P=0.043) and VAS leg pain at 2 years, although the latter did not reach statistical significance (P=0.095). Achievement of MCID for each PRO, patient satisfaction and return to work were also comparable. Obese patients who underwent MIS-TLIF had a shorter length of stay and improved functional disability at 2 years compared those who underwent open TLIF. However, a similar proportion achieved a clinical meaningful improvement. Patient satisfaction and return to work were also comparable at 2 years. Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Retrospective cohort study. To compare the incidence of adjacent segmental pathology (ASP) following minimally invasive (MI) vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to identify factors linked to ASP requiring reoperation. This retrospective study reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent MI-TLIF or open TLIF. Radiographic ASP (RASP) was evaluated using X-ray imaging to distinguish between degenerative changes, spondylolisthesis, and instability in the adjacent spinal segment. Clinical ASP (CASP) was assessed with the visual analog scale score for leg and back pain and the Oswestry disability index. Patient data were collected 1, 2, 5, and 10 years postoperatively. The timing and frequency of ASP reoperation were analyzed. Five years postoperatively, the RASP rate was 35.23% and 45.95% in the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups. The frequency of CASP differed significantly between the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups at 1 year postoperatively. The rates of RASP, CASP, and ASP necessitating reoperation were not significantly different 10years postoperatively. Cranial facet violation significantly affected ASP in both groups. In the open TLIF group, preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration significantly influenced ASP. The RASP rate at 5years postoperatively and the CASP rate at 1year postoperatively differed significantly between groups. There was no difference in the rate of ASP requiring reoperation. Cranial facet violation is a crucial driving factor for ASP after both surgical procedures.

A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques.

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of robotic spine surgery and conventional pedicle screw fixation in lumbar degenerative disease. We evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes to demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic surgery. This study employed propensity score matching and included 3 groups: robot-assisted mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (robotic surgery, RS), c-arm guided minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (C-arm guidance, CG), and freehand open PLIF (free of guidance, FG) (54 patients each). The mean follow-up period was 2.2 years. The preoperative spine condition was considered. Accuracy was evaluated using the Gertzbein-Robbins scale (GRS score) and Babu classification (Babu score). Radiological outcomes included adjacent segmental disease (ASD) and mechanical failure. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form health survey, and clinical ASD rate. Accuracy was higher in the RS group (p < 0.01) than in other groups. The GRS score was lower in the CG group, whereas the Babu score was lower in the FG group compared with the RS group. No significant differences were observed in radiological and clinical outcomes among the 3 groups. Regression analysis identified preoperative facet degeneration, GRS and Babu scores as significant variables for radiological and clinical ASD. Mechanical failure was influenced by the GRS score and patients' age. This study showed the superior accuracy of robotic spine surgery compared with conventional techniques. When combined with minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery is advantageous with reduced ligament and muscle damage associated with traditional open procedures.

Predicting adequate segmental lordosis correction in lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a focus on the discontinuous segment

PurposeTo identify the factors associated with a correction of the segmental angle (SA) with a total change greater than 10° in each level following minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-OLIF).MethodsPatients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent single- or two-level MIS-OLIF were reviewed. Segments with adequate correction of the SA >10° after MIS-OLIF in immediate postoperative radiograph were categorized as discontinuous segments (D segments), whereas those without such improvement were assigned as continuous segments (C segments). Clinical and radiological parameters were compared, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with SA correction >10° after MIS-OLIF.ResultsOf 211 segments included, 38 segments (18.0%) were classified as D segments. Compared with C segments, D segments demonstrated a significantly smaller preoperative SA (mean ± standard deviation [SD], − 1.1° ± 6.7° vs. 6.6° ± 6.3°, p < 0.001), larger change of SA (mean ± SD, 13.5° ± 3.4° vs. 3.1° ± 3.9°, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of presence of facet effusion (76.3% vs. 48.6%, p = 0.002). Logistic regression revealed preoperative SA (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]:0.733 [0.639–0.840], p < 0.001) and facet effusion (OR [95% CI]:14.054 [1.758–112.377], p = 0.027) as significant predictors for >10° SA correction after MIS-OLIF.ConclusionPreoperative kyphotic SA and facet effusion can predict SA correction >10° following MIS-OLIF. For patients with lordotic SA and no preoperative facet effusion, supplemental procedures, such as anterior column release or posterior osteotomy, should be prepared for additional lumbar lordosis correction required for remnant global sagittal imbalance after MIS-OLIF.

Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of multi‑segmental lumbar degenerative disease: A systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis.

The present study aimed to compare the differences between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar fusion (TLIF) for multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease regarding intraoperative indices and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases were searched for literature on MIS-TLIF and open TLIF in treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases. Of the 1,608 articles retrieved, 10 were included for final analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Review Manager 5.4 were used for quality evaluation and data analysis, respectively. The MIS-TLIF group was superior to the open TLIF group regarding intraoperative blood loss [95% confidence interval (CI): -254.33,-157.86; P<0.00001], postoperative in-bed time (95%CI: -3.49,-2.76; P<0.00001), hospitalization time (95%CI: -5.14,-1.78; P<0.0001) and postoperative leg pain Visual Analog Scale score (95%CI: -0.27,-0.13; P<0.00001). The fluoroscopy frequency for MIS-TLIF (95%CI: 2.07,6.12; P<0.0001) was significantly higher than that for open TLIF. The two groups had no significant differences in operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative complications, fusion rate, or Oswestry Disability Index score. In treating multi-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less blood loss, shorter bedtime and hospitalization time and improved early postoperative efficacy; however, open TLIF has a lower fluoroscopy frequency.

Minimally Invasive L4-5 Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Robot-Assisted Single-Position Posterior Fixation: 2-Dimensional Operative Video.

We present here a 58-year-old female patient with L4-5 spondylolisthesis, who underwent a minimally invasive L4-5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with robot-assisted bilateral posterior instrumented fixation in a single lateral position (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic). There has been interest in detailed video-based descriptions of single-position surgery with lateral approach interbody fusions, either in the prone or lateral decubitus position.1-6 Particularly, the addition of robotics has been shown to help increase overall operating efficiency in the lateral position with reduced case times even with the increased up-front robot setup time.7,8 The OLIF, also known as an anterior-to-psoas approach, allows for single-position posterior fixation and can be very effective at L4-5 where the anatomy of the iliac crest or lumbar plexus does not preclude this surgical corridor the way it could in the transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes between these 2 lateral approaches have been shown to be very good,9 and OLIF has reduced blood loss while still restoring alignment parameters compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with better fusion and reduced subsidence compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.10,11 To our knowledge, this is the first video demonstrating a view of the OLIF approach through a high-definition retractor-based camera (MaxView Camera, Viseon Inc). There is no identifying patient information in this video. The participants and any identifiable individuals consented to publication of his/her image, and the patient consented to the procedure.

Budget Impact Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A European Hospital Perspective.

When traditional therapies fail to provide relief from debilitating lower back pain, surgeries such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be required. This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared minimally-invasive (MI)-TLIF versus open (O)-TLIF for single-level fusion from an Italian hospital perspective. The BIA compared costs of 100 MI-TLIF and 100 O-TLIF procedures from an Italian hospital perspective over a one-year time horizon. The base case included costs for length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, and sterilizing surgical trays. The scenario analysis also included operating room (OR) time and complication costs. Base case inputs were from the Miller et al meta-analysis; scenario analysis inputs were from the Hammad et al meta-analysis. The device costs for MI-TLIF and O-TLIF procedures were from Italian tender prices for Viper Prime™ System and Expedium™ Spine System, respectively. Base case deterministic analysis results showed cost savings of €207,370 for MI-TLIF compared with O-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€215,277), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), and surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), whereas device costs were lower for O-TLIF (€53,020). The probabilistic result was similar, with MI-TLIF resulting in savings of €211,026 (95% credible interval [CR]: €208,725 - €213,327). All 1000 base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs were cost saving. Deterministic scenario analysis results showed cost savings of €166,719 for MI-TLIF. MI-TLIF costs were lower for LOS (€190,813), transfusion for blood loss (€16,881), surgical tray sterilization (€28,232), and complications (€2076), whereas O-TLIF costs were lower for OR time (€18,263) and devices used (€53,020). Despite the increase incremental cost for medical device innovation and OR time, this study demonstrates the economic savings of MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF from a European hospital perspective. The findings will be useful to policy and hospital decision makers in assessing purchasing, funding and reimbursement decisions.

Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease Following Minimally Invasive L5-Floating Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease Following Minimally Invasive L5-Floating Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Compare the outcomes of minimally invasive versus opentransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treatment lumbar spinal stenosis

Background: Minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has become an effective method to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and is widely used. This article compares the effectiveness of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery in treating lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: From 9/2018 to 10/2022, 104 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, including 52 cases in the minimally invasive surgery group and 52 cases in the open surgery group. Parameters such as surgery time, blood loss, postoperative time, hospital stay, and complications were recorded. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to assess low back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to assess pain and functional outcome in preoperation, three months, and six months after surgery. Follow-up plain X ray were taken to evaluate the fusion after 2 years. Results: The two groups found no significant differences in age, sex ratio, and percentage of cause spinal stenosis data. Compared with the open surgery group, the minimally invasive surgery group had less intraoperative blood loss (127.50 ± 27.99 mL vs 25.12 ± 62.05 mL, P &lt; 0.001), bed immobilization time shorter (1.21 ± 0.41 days versus 2.40 ± 0.60 days, P &lt; 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (4.42 ± 0.94 days versus 6.77 ± 1.13 days, P &lt; 0.001). VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI scores of the two groups decreased statistically significantly compared to before surgery, but there was no difference between the two groups after six months. X-ray showed no significant difference in fusion of the two groups. Conclusion: Our study showed that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and effective option in treating lumbar spinal stenosis and has the advantage of less blood loss and less hospital stay compared to open surgery. Key words: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive spine surgery, open spine surgery, spinal stenosis.

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

ObjectiveTo comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsTotally 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.ConclusionMinimally 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.

Intraoperative Anteropulsion of an Interbody Fusion Cage During Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Report

Expandable cages are very commonly used during minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for better restoration of sagittal alignment. We present a rare event of intraoperative expandable cage anteropulsion into the retroperitoneal space. To date, several cases of cage migration have been reported. However, ours is the first case of intraoperative anterior cage migration during minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Herein, we present a case of 70-year-old female planned for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for grade II L5–S1 lytic spondylolisthesis. There was an unnoticed anterior longitudinal ligament rupture during the cage expansion manoeuvre. Cage dislodgment was noticed intraoperatively. This was managed by compression of the interbody site posteriorly and insertion of another snugly fitting bullet cage, followed by anterior retroperitoneal exploration in the same setting to retrieve the migrated cage. The patient’s postoperative course was satisfactory. At a 1-year follow-up, patient was ambulatory and asymptomatic. Follow-up imaging showed bony fusion and no signs of implant failure. Expandable TLIF cages can cause iatrogenic release of the anterior longitudinal ligament during expansion. Surgeons must be aware of this rare complication, which can result in anterior cage migration.

Research Progress of the Anatomical Structure of the Surgical Approach for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) is a newly developed minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedure used to treat a variety of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The OLIF procedure has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, faster recovery, significant indirect decompression, large bone graft area, high fusion rate, and preservation of posterior column structures, but it needs to be performed under the condition of familiarity with the patient's anatomical approach to avoid injury to nerves, blood vessels, and other structures. In this paper, we review the new clinical advances in the application of anatomy for OLIF surgery in terms of the abdominal wall, blood vessels, lumbar major muscle, window between blood vessels and lumbar major muscle, nerves, and ureter.

Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis Treatment.

(1) Background: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages for the treatment of lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis. (2) Methods: Fifty-one patients with single-level lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: anterior lumbar interbody fusion with a tri-cortical iliac bone graft (ALIF+ tri-cortical iliac bone graft) (n = 28) and OLIF using PEEK cages with an autologous bone graft (OLIF+ PEEK cages) (n = 23). Perioperative radiographic parameters, complications, and clinical outcomes in both groups were analyzed and compared. (3) Results: The postoperative and final follow-up LL (lumbar lordosis) and RL (regional lordosis) were improved in both groups (p < 0.001). But, compared with the ALIF group, the OLIF group had more improvement of the RL. The operation time was 79 min for the OLIF group and 101 min for the ALIF group (p < 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss was 92 mL for the OLIF group and 114 mL for the ALIF group (p < 0.05). Significant clinical improvement was observed in visual analogue scale scores for the back and Oswestry Disability Index in both groups (p < 0.001). There was no recurrence of infection. (4) Conclusions: Compared with the ALIF group, the OLIF group had more improvement in radiographic and clinical outcomes. Thus, OLIF using PEEK cages with an autologous bone graft could be proposed for the surgical treatment of lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis.