Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Group Research Articles

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adult Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis: Analysis of Sagittal Radiographic Parameters - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Randomized controlled trial. To compare the effect of posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) on sagittal radiographic parameters in patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Additionally, to explore the correlation between changes in these parameters and clinical outcomes. Forty-six consecutive patients with single-level low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis were initially enrolled. They were randomly assigned to undergo either PLF or PLIF. Patients were followed up for at least 24 months. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, sagittal vertical axis, T1 pelvic angle, slip angle, slip degree and disc height. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Four participants were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 42 patients, 29 were female. The mean age was 40.23 ± 10.25 years in the PLF group and 35.81 ± 10.58 years in the PLIF group. There was a statistically significant greater correction of all radiographic parameters in the PLIF group. The ODI and VAS improved significantly in both groups, with no significant differences between the two groups. Changes in the ODI and VAS were significantly correlated with changes in disc height, slip angle and lumbar lordosis. In patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis, PLIF demonstrates superior efficacy compared to PLF in correcting sagittal radiographic parameters. Nevertheless, this distinction does not seem to influence short-term clinical results. Restoring disc height, correcting the slip angle, and reestablishing normal lumbar lordosis are crucial steps in the surgical management of isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases

ObjectiveTo compare modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disorders in order to assess its safety and effectiveness.MethodsFrom January 2016 to January 2021, 74 patients who received single-segment M-TLIF were examined. A total of 74 patients having single-segment PLIF during the same time period were included in a retrospective controlled study using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The two groups were compared in terms of the fusion rate, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS), the perioperative condition, the postoperative complications, and the postoperative neighbouring segment degeneration.ResultsAll patients had surgery satisfactorily and were monitored for at least a year afterwards. The baseline values for the two groups did not significantly differ. The interbody fusion rate between PLIF (98.65%) and M-TLIF (97.30%) was not significantly different. In the follow-up, the M-TLIF group's VAS score for low back and leg pain was lower than that of the PLIF group. The ODI score of the M-TLIF group was lower than that of the PLIF group at 7 days and 3 months following surgery. Both groups' post-op VAS and ODI scores for low back and leg pain were much lower than those from before the procedure. In M-TLIF group, the operation time, drainage tube extraction time, postoperative bed rest time and hospital stay time were shorter, and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less. Compared with those before operation, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were significantly increased in both groups during postoperative follow-up (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications and adjacent segment degeneration of M-TLIF were significantly lower than those of PLIF.ConclusionsM-TLIF is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar degenerative disorders, with a high fusion rate and no significant difference between M-TLIF and PLIF. M-TLIF's efficacy and safety are comparable to that of PLIF, particularly in terms of early relief of low back pain and improvement in quality of life following surgery. Therefore, M-TLIF technology can be popularized and applied in clinic.

A Comparison of Hidden Blood Loss Between Multilevel Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients.

Retrospective cohort study. This study aimed to compare transfusion and blood loss volumes, particularly hidden blood loss volume, in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Corrective surgery for adults with spinal deformity patients can be performed via the traditional posterior approach (PLIF) or minimally invasive lateral approach (LLIF). LLIF is associated with longer or comparable operation times and lower intraoperative blood loss. However, hidden blood loss has not been compared between the two procedures. We compared hidden blood loss and other blood loss volumes, transfusion volume, operation time, and radiographic surgical outcomes between LLIF patients (n = 71) and PLIF patients (n = 33) who underwent surgery in our institution from September 2011 to June 2018. All patients provided informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Institutional ethics committee conducted this study approval was obtained. Transfusion volume and intraoperative and total blood loss volumes were significantly higher in the PLIF group. Operation time and HBL did not significantly differ. The hidden blood loss-to-intraoperative blood loss ratio was significantly higher in the LLIF group (113% vs 60%; P = .004). Radiographic measures of outcome were significantly better after surgery than before in both groups. Although intraoperative blood loss was less with LLIF than PLIF, HBL was similar between the approaches. Patients undergoing LLIF should be followed closely for postoperative anemia even if intraoperative blood loss is low.

Outcomes and Complications of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion as a Surgical Option in Elderly Patients (Over 70 Years Old) with Degenerative Spinal Disease

Objective: As Korea has become a super-aging society, the number of elderly patients with degenerative spinal disease has steadily increased. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) by comparing the results and complications between OLIF and open spinal fusion in elderly patients with degenerative spinal disease.Methods: Thirty-one patients underwent one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and 35 patients underwent one-level indirect decompression OLIF. The clinical outcomes of the two patient groups were analyzed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Through a comparative analysis of pre- and post-operative images, we measured changes in disc height (DH) and foraminal height (FH), and investigated the occurrence of subsidence in each patient group. The cross-sectional area was measured using magnetic resonance imaging pre- and post-operatively in OLIF.Results: The pre-operative VAS and ODI scores were similar between the two groups and tended to improve post-operatively. In the OLIF group, the estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower, DH and FH gains were more frequent, DH and FH maintenance was better, and cage subsidence occurred less frequently. In OLIF, psoas paresis and approach-site hematoma occurred; however, all patients with psoas paresis recovered without further treatment before discharge. In the PLIF group, dural tears occurred in four patients who recovered without revision surgery. Conclusion: OLIF enables indirect decompression, reduced EBL, shorter hospitalization, and lesser subsidence. OLIF is considered a beneficial, minimally invasive surgical method for elderly patients.

COMPARISON OF TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AND POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SINGLE-LEVEL LUMBAR SPONDYLOLISTHESIS

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in managing single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. A Randomized Controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Neurosurgery, Gomal Medical College, DI Khan, Pakistan, from December 2022 to May 2023 on 50 patients presenting with adult lumbar spondylolisthesis. In group A, 25 patients underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) utilizing two cages and pedicle fixation, while 25 patients received transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) employing a single cage and pedicle fixation, representing group B. Outcomes such as mean operative times, blood loss, back and leg pain score on VAS, and complications were assessed between both groups. The mean postoperative time, blood loss, and back pain on the VAS scale were significantly lower in the TLIF group than in the PLIF group. The TLIP group showed a lower number of complications as compared to the PLIF group. TLIF outperforms PLIF regarding functional outcomes and the rate of complications for grade I/II single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation.

To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) in the treatment of multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation (msLDH). From January 2021 to December 2021, 75 patients with msLDH admitted to Baoding No.1 Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected and divided into PTED group (n=40) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) group (n=35) according to different surgical methods. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical complications, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA) scores were compared between the two groups. In the PTED group, the average operation time was 57.45±12.01minutes, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 50.57±16.69ml. There were three patients with surgical complications, including one case of hematoma, one case of aggravation of neurological symptoms and one case of new onset of neurological symptoms. In the PLIF group, there were 12 cases undergoing single-segment operation, 15 cases undergoing double-segment operation and 8 cases undergoing three-segment operation, the average operation time was 137.26±34.64minutes, and the average intraoperative blood loss was 456.06±33.06ml, there were four cases of wound fat liquefaction or delayed healing, two cases of hematoma, and three cases of exacerbation of original neurological symptoms or new neurological symptoms. At one month, six months, and one year of postoperative, the ODI and JOA scores of the two groups were significantly improved compared with those preoperative, and the ODI scores of the PTED group were better than those of the PLIF group (t=3.131, 2.263, 3.768, all P<0.05). The surgical effect of PTED in the treatment of LDH is similar to that of PLIF. However, PTED has the advantages of short operation time, less blood loss, fewer surgical complications, and high surgical safety. It is worthy of clinical promotion.

Effectiveness analysis of posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion assisted by one-hole split endoscope for L4, 5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

To compare the effectiveness of posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion assisted by one-hole split endoscope (OSE) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of L4, 5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The clinical data of 58 patients with DLS who met the selection criteria admitted between February 2020 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, of which 26 were treated with OSE-assisted posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion (OSE group) and 32 were treated with PLIF (PLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index, Meyerding grade, lower limb symptom side, decompression side, stenosis type, and preoperative low back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, leg pain VAS score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the height of the anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications were compared between the two groups. The low back pain and leg pain VAS scores and ODI before operation, at 1 month, 6 months after operation, and last follow-up, the height of anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space before operation, at 6 months after operation, and last follow-up, the modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up after operation were used to evaluate the effectiveness; and the Bridwell method at last follow-up was used to evaluate the interbody fusion. Both groups successfully completed the operation. Compared with the PLIF group, the OSE group showed a decrease in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay, but an increase in operation time, with significant differences (P<0.05). In the OSE group, no complication such as nerve root injury and thecal sac tear occurred; in the PLIF group, there were 1 case of thecal sac tear and 1 case of epidural hematoma, which were cured after conservative management. Both groups of patients were followed up 13-20 months with an average of 15.5 months. There was no complication such as loosening, sinking, or displacement of the fusion cage. The low back pain and leg pain VAS scores, ODI, and the height of anterior and posterior margins of the intervertebral space at each time point after operation in both groups were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). Except for the VAS score of lower back pain in the OSE group being significantly better than that in the PLIF group at 1 month after operation (P<0.05), there was no significant difference in all indicators between the two groups at all other time points (P>0.05). At last follow-up, both groups achieved bone fusion, and there was no significant difference in Bridwell interbody fusion and modified MacNab standard evaluation between the two groups (P>0.05). OSE-assisted posterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for L4, 5 DLS, although the operation time is relatively long, but the postoperative hospitalization stay is short, the complications are few, the operation is safe and effective, and the early effectiveness is satisfactory.

Clinical value and effectiveness profiles of oblique lateral interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar brucellosis spondylitis.

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for lumbar brucellosis spondylitis. Between April 2018 and December 2021, 80 cases of lumbar brucellosis spondylitis admitted to our institution were evaluated for eligibility and randomly assigned to either PLIF (group A, lesion removal by posterior approach + interbody fusion + percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation) or OLIF (group B, lesion removal by anterior approach + interbody fusion + percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation). The outcome measures included operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) classification, Cobb angle, and interbody fusion time. PLIF resulted in shorter operative time and hospital stay and less intraoperative bleeding vs. OLIF (p<0.05). All eligible patients showed significantly lower VAS scores, and smaller ESR values and Cobb angles after treatment (p<0.05), but no significant intergroup differences were observed (p>0.05). The two groups showed similar preoperative ASIA (American Spinal Injury Association) classification and interbody fusion time (p>0.05). PLIF was associated with better ASIA classification at three months postoperatively vs. OLIF (p<0.05). Both surgical techniques are efficient at removing the lesion, relieving pain, maintaining spinal stability, promoting implant fusion, and facilitating prognostic inflammation control. PLIF features a shorter surgical duration and hospital stay, less intraoperative bleeding, and greater neurological improvement vs. OLIF. Nevertheless, OLIF outperforms PLIF in the excision of peri-vertebral abscesses. PLIF is indicated for posterior spinal column lesions, particularly those with spinal nerve compression in the spinal canal, whereas OLIF is indicated for structural bone deterioration in the anterior column, particularly for those with perivascular abscesses.

Midline Lumbar Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Involving L5-S1 For Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Comparative Study.

A retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) for lumbosacral fusion compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Patients who had undergone posterior lumbosacral fusion surgery were divided into a MIDLF group (n=37) and a PLIF group (n=42). The follow-up time was at least 12months. The operation data, recovery condition, complications, clinical outcomes, and status of implants and fusion were compared between the 2 groups. The MIDLF group experienced significantly less blood loss, lower postoperative creatine kinase levels and total drainage volume, earlier time to ambulation, and less hospital stay times after surgery compared to the PLIF group (P<0.05). The mean postoperative back pain visual analog scale scores in the MIDLF group were significantly lower than the PLIF group (P<0.05). The improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores during 3-month follow-up displayed a significant difference between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). The fusion rate tended to be higher in the MIDLF group; however, the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in respect to screw loosening and cage subsidence rate. There were 2 cases of complications both occurring in the PLIF group. MIDLF is safe and effective for lumbosacral fusion and in line with the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery.

Outcomes of surgical intervention for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis of different surgical fixation techniques.

Debate regarding effectiveness of surgical modalities contributes to a lack of consensus of decision making for surgical interventions. Furthermore, data regarding cost effectiveness, surgical operative time, resources, patient hospital stay and recovery is limited, particularly in the medium term for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The objective was to compare clinical outcomes following different fixation interventions treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A retrospective cohort study using the British Spine Registry (BSR) of 1,838 patients aged ≥18 years. Five hundred and five patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and 1,333 undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with 6 months follow-up, were compared. Demographics, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) [back and leg], quality of life, complications and cost effectiveness were analysed. NRS (back and leg) demonstrated a statistically significant difference favouring TLIF at 6 months (P=0.04) and (P<0.05) respectively. There was no difference in ODI improvement at 6 months between PLIF and TLIF (P=0.620), but there was a statistically significant difference in ODI scores preoperatively between PLIF and TLIF (P<0.001). EQ-5D-5L-Health VAS (P=0.136) and EQ-5D-5L (P=0.655) did not show a statistically significant difference in improvement between PLIF and TLIF. Dural tear was the most common complication and was higher in the PLIF group (5.7%) but not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss was greater for PLIF (P=0.041). Implant cost (P<0.001) was higher for TLIF whereas theatre time was higher for PLIF (P=0.031). Both PLIF and TLIF result in clinically significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain and NRS leg pain, with superiority of TLIF for improvements in back and leg pain. Surgeons appeared to use ODI preoperatively to decide intervention with comparable improvements for both approaches. Average theatre time and blood loss volume was higher for PLIF. Factors like implant costs and costs of consumables were higher for TLIF. Costs merit further evaluation.

Comparison of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Posterior Decompression (OLIF-PD) and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) in the Treatment of Adjacent Segmental Disease(ASD)

An unintended consequence following lumbar fusion is the development of adjacent segment disease (ASD). Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior decompression (OLIF-PD) is another feasible option for ASD, and there is no literature report on this combined surgical strategy. A retrospective analysis was performed on 18 ASD patients requiring direct decompression in our hospital between September 2017 and January 2022. Among them, eight patients underwent OLIF-PD revision and ten underwent PLIF revision. There were no significant differences in the baseline data between the two groups. The clinical outcomes and complications were compared between the two groups. The operation time, operative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay in the OLIF-PD group were significantly lower than those in the PLIF group. The VAS of low back pain in the OLIF-PD group was significantly better than that in the PLIF group during the postoperative follow-up. The ODI at the last follow-up in the OLIF-PD group and the PLIF group were significantly relieved compared with those before operation. The excellent and good rate of the modified MacNab standard at the last follow-up was 87.5% in the OLIF-PD group and 70% in the PLIF group. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups. For ASD requiring direct decompression after posterior lumbar fusion, compared with traditional PLIF revision surgery, OLIF-PD has a similar clinical effect, but has a reduced operation time, blood loss, hospital stay and complications. OLIF-PD may be an alternative revision strategy for ASD.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) reduces total lifetime cost compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a cost-utility analysis in Thailand

BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion techniques treat degenerative lumbar diseases effectively. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) decreases soft tissue disruption and accelerates recovery better than standard open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, the material cost of LLIF is high, especially in Thailand. The cost-effectiveness of LLIF and PLIF in developing countries is unclear. This study compared the cost-utility and clinical outcomes of LLIF and PLIF in Thailand.MethodsData from patients with lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level LLIF and PLIF between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative and 1-year follow-up EuroQol-5D-5L and healthcare costs were collected. A cost-utility analysis with a lifetime time horizon was performed using a societal perspective. Outcomes are reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of 5003 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained was used.ResultsThe 136 enrolled patients had a mean age of 62.26 ± 11.66 years. Fifty-nine patients underwent LLIF, while 77 underwent PLIF. The PLIF group experienced greater estimated blood loss (458.96 vs 167.03 ml; P < 0.001), but the LLIF group had a longer operative time (222.80 vs 194.62 min; P = 0.007). One year postoperatively, the groups’ Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale scores were improved without statistical significance. The PLIF group had a significantly better utility score than the LLIF group (0.89 vs 0.84; P = 0.023). LLIF’s total lifetime cost was less than that of PLIF (30,124 and 33,003 USD). Relative to PLIF, LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with an ICER of 19,359 USD per QALY gained.ConclusionsLLIF demonstrated lower total lifetime cost from a societal perspective. Regard to our data, at the 1-year follow-up, the improvement in patient quality of life was less with LLIF than with PLIF. Additionally, economic evaluation modeling based on the context of Thailand showed that LLIF was not cost-effective compared with PLIF. A strategy that facilitates the selection of patients for LLIF is required to optimize patient benefits.

Comparative study of decompression of unilateral biportal endoscopic compared to laminectomy with fusion and internal fixation in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD) to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis (SLSS). Methods: The clinical data of 64 patients with SLSS treated with PLIF and UBE-ULBD in Dalian Central Hospital Affiliated to Dalian Medical University from April 2018 to April 2021 were collected and divided into UBE group and PLIF group according to the different surgical procedures. There were 30 cases in the UBE group, including 12 males and 18 females, aged (69.8±6.8) years. There were 34 patients in the PLIF group, including 15 males and 19 females, aged (69.3±6.3) years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical complications, the volume of drainage, transfusion, post-operative bed rest time, postoperative hospital stay, surgical costs of both groups were recorded and analyzed. The visual analogue scales (VAS) of back/leg pain (pre-operation and 1 d, 1 month, 6 month, 12 month post-operation) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) (pre-operation and 1 month, 6 month, 12 month post-operation) were used to determine the outcome. And the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) and Schizas grade of both groups preoperatively and 6 month postoperatively were recorded. Results: The operation time in the UBE group was (69.2±8.0) min, it was lower than that in the PLIF group (139.0±15.3) min (P<0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and drainage in the UBE group were (19.5±5.6) ml and (15.0±10.8) ml, which were both lower than those in the PILF group [(212.4±34.1) ml and (169.6±43.8) ml] (both P<0.05). The postoperative bed rest time and hospital stay in the UBE group were (1.8±0.7) days and (3.0±0.9) days, which were both shorter than those in the PLIF group [(4.5±1.4) days and (7.1±1.7) days] (both P<0.05). The surgical cost was also lower in the UBE group than that in the PLIF group [RMB,(18.4±1.0) thousands yuan vs (33.9±2.4) thousands yuan, P<0.05]. In addition, no patient received blood transfusion in the UBE group. Dural sac tear occurred in 2 cases in the UBE group and in 3 cases in PLIF group; nerve root injury and infection occurred in one case in the PLIF group, respectively. In the PLIF group, the VAS of back pain was not significantly improved 1 day after operation when compared with that before the operation, but it significantly improved 1 month, 6 months and 1 year after operation (all P<0.05). The VAS for back pain at 1 day after operation and ODI at 1 month after operation in the UBE group were significantly superior to those in the PLIF group (both P<0.05), while there was no significant difference between the two groups in the VAS for back pain at 1 month, 6 months and 1 year after operation and ODI at 6 months and 1 year after operation. Both groups got significant canal expansion after the surgery and the PLIF group showed larger canal expansion extent (all P<0.05). Both groups improved significantly after surgery in the Schizas grade, there were 25 cases in UBE group improved to grade A, 5 cases to grade B while 30 cases in PLIF group improved to grade A, 4 cases to grade B, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: ULBD-UBE could achieve full decompression of the whole spinal canal with limited structures damage in treating SLSS. Compared with PLIF, UBE-ULBD could get complete decompression as well as less iatrogenic damage, it may be an ideal alternative surgical technique for SLSS with less invasion.

Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)

Background ContextIn recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been more and more favored by spinal surgeons because of its advantages of low trauma, rapid recovery, high fusion rate and fewer complications. PurposeTo compare the clinical effects of ULIF with those of conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Study DesignProspective case control study. Patient SampleTwenty-seven patients treated by ULIF and thirty-three patients treated by PLIF. Outcome MeasuresThe preoperative baseline and surgical technique-related outcomes (mean operation time, blood loss during operation, postoperative drainage, and postoperative hospital stay) were compared between the two groups. The clinical status of the two groups before and after surgery were also compared: visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the legs and back, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The clinical laboratory indexes of the two groups before and after the operation were compared: C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor–α (TNF-α), as well as the incidence of complications, such as dural tear, nerve root injury and infection. MethodsAdult patients who underwent L3–S1 single level lumbar interbody fusion were included in the study. They were divided into a PLIF group and a ULIF group according to the type of surgery. This study comprised 60 cases: 27 cases in the ULIF group and thirty-three cases in the PLIF group. ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative baseline between the two groups. The ULIF group experienced less blood loss, postoperative drainage and a shorter postoperative hospital stay than the PLIF group; however the ULIF group required a longer operation time than the PLIF group (p<.05). CRP, ESR, CPK, IL-6, and TNF-α levels of the PLIF group were all significantly higher than those of the ULIF group 5 days after surgery (p<.05). The improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, VAS scores for leg pain and JOA score in the ULIF group were all significantly better than those in the PLIF group at 5 days after surgery (p<.05). There was no significant difference in fusion rate at 6 months between the 2 groups (p>.05). ConclusionsThis study showed that ULIF and PLIF were both effective surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion. However, ULIF caused less bleeding, reduced inflammatory reaction, less tissue damage and faster postoperative recovery compared with PLIF. Both long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to validate the clinical and radiological results of this surgery.

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery.MethodsElectronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review.ResultsAfter the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores.ConclusionsUBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Patients With Movement-related Low Back Pain Have Less Postoperative Satisfaction After Decompression Alone.

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected multicenter observational data. The aim was to examine the preoperative factors affecting postoperative satisfaction following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and microendoscopic muscle-preserving interlaminar decompression (ME-MILD) in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The technique involved in DLS surgery may either be decompression alone or decompression-fixation. Poor performance may occur after either of these surgical treatments. The author hypothesized that evaluating the correlation between preoperative quality of life and postoperative performance would aid in determining the optimal procedure. This study included 138 patients who underwent surgery for 1-level mild DLS. The authors performed PLIF for 79 patients and ME-MILD for 59 patients. When the satisfaction subscale of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire exceeded 2 points, postoperative satisfaction was considered poor. The clinical characteristics were investigated. Responses to preoperative health-related quality of life questionnaires, such as the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), short form-36 health survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale, were compared between the satisfied and unsatisfied groups. In the PLIF group, no endogenous factors influenced postoperative satisfaction. The ME-MILD cohort's satisfied and unsatisfied patients differed significantly in terms of preoperative lumbar spine dysfunction ( P <0.001) items of the JOABPEQ, role physical ( P =0.03), and role emotional ( P =0.03) items of the SF-36. A strong correlation ( r =-0.609 P =0.015) was found between preoperative lumbar spine dysfunction and postoperative satisfaction. In the ME-MILD group, preoperative lumbar spine function was correlated with postoperative satisfaction. Decompression alone may be ineffective in cases with decreased lumbar spine function prior to surgery. The degree of low back pain on movement should be considered before selecting the surgical method. 3.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

BackgroundEndoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).MethodsTwenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.ResultsNo differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 ± 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 ± 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab’s criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 ± 6.39% and 93.54 ± 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

A Comparative Study of a New Retractor-Assisted WILTSE TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and Traditional PLIF for Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.

ObjectivesTo compare the clinical efficacy of a new retractor‐assisted Wiltse transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS‐TLIF), and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in treating single‐level lumbar degenerative diseases.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted by analyzing the clinical and imaging data of consecutive patients with single‐level lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent the new retractor‐assisted Wiltse TLIF, MIS‐TLIF, or traditional PLIF. This study enrolled 87 concurrent patients between June 2016 and December 2019 (Wiltse TLIF 29 cases; MIS‐TLIF 28 cases; PLIF 30 cases). The three groups were compared for perioperative indicators (including intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, bedridden time), creatine kinase (CK), visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, intervertebral fusion rate, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration (including ratio of multifidus atrophy and ratio of lean‐to‐total cross‐sectional area [CSA]).ResultsIntraoperative blood loss (F = 62.628, p < 0.001), postoperative drainage volume (F = 72.048, p < 0.001), and bedridden time (χ2 = 62.289, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the MIS‐TLIF and Wiltse groups than in the PLIF group. The operative and intraoperative radiation times of the MIS‐TLIF group were significantly longer than those of the Wiltse and PLIF groups. The CK concentration in the Wiltse and MIS‐TLIF groups were significantly lower than those in the PLIF group 1 day (F = 9.331, p < 0.001) and 3 days after surgery (F = 15.967, p < 0.001). The PLIF group's back pain VAS score was higher than those of the Wiltse and MIS‐TLIF groups. The PLIF group had a higher ODI 6 months (F = 3.282, p = 0.042) and 12 months (F = 5.316, p = 0.007) after surgery and a lower JOA score than the Wiltse and MIS‐TLIF groups 6 months (F = 3.234, p = 0.044) and 12 months (F = 3.874, p = 0.025) after surgery. The ratio of multifidus atrophy in the PLIF group (41.70 ± 8.84%) was significantly higher than those of the Wiltse group (24.13 ± 6.82%) and the MIS‐TLIF group (22.35 ± 5.03%). The ratio of lean‐to‐total CSA in the PLIF group was lower than those of the Wiltse and MIS‐TLIF groups after surgery (F = 8.852, p < 0.001). MIS‐TLIF group showed longer operation time (169.11 ± 29.38 min) and intraoperative fluoroscopy time (87.61 ± 3.13 s) than the Wiltse group.ConclusionWiltse TLIF assisted by the new retractor is a more convenient and minimally invasive surgical method than the traditional PLIF and MIS‐TLIF methods, which are linked to a long learning curve and long operation and fluoroscopy time.

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5–S1: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the radiologic and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at the L5–S1.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF and PLIF) at only the L5–S1 and were followed up for more than 12 months. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD), diagnosis, comorbid conditions, fusion rate, perioperative results, and pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters at the L5–S1 level, pelvic parameters and degree of spondylolisthesis, and clinical results were analyzed.Results: A total of 102 patients (46 male, 56 female) with a mean age of 57.1 years were evaluated. Fifty and fifty-two patients underwent MIS-TLIF and PLIF surgeries, respectively. Radiologic parameters increased from their preoperative measures at the last follow-up study; similarly, there were no intergroup differences. The fusion rates in the MIS-TLIF and PLIF groups were 86% and 82.7%, respectively. The subsidence rates in the MIS-TLIF and PLIF groups were 6% and 3.8%, respectively. There was no intergroup difference in terms of fusion rate and subsidence. Clinical outcomes also gradually improved after surgery in both groups without intergroup differences.Conclusion: In L5–S1 posterior spinal surgery, there was no significant difference between MIS-TLIF and conventional PLIF. Considering the operation time and estimated blood loss, MIS-TLIF is more effective than PLIF surgery in terms of postoperative health care and economics.

Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases

BackgroundEndoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has become an emerging technique. Some researchers have reported the technique of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We propose percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) as an alternative approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy of PE-PLIF by comparing percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).MethodsThirty patients were enrolled in each group. Demographic data, perioperative data, and radiological parameters were collected prospectively. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.ResultsThe background data were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time was longer in the PE-PLIF group. The PE-PLIF group showed benefits in less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. VAS and ODI scores significantly improved in both groups. However, the VAS score of low-back pain was lower in the PE-PLIF group. The satisfaction rate was 96.7% in both groups. The radiological outcomes were similar in both groups. In the PE-PLIF group, the fusion rate was 93.3%, and the cage subsidence rate was 6.7%; in the open PLIF group, the fusion and cage subsidence rates were 96.7% and 16.7%. There were minor complications in one patient in the PE-PLIF group and two in the open PLIF group.ConclusionsThe current study revealed that PE-PLIF is safe and effective compared with open PLIF. In addition, this minimally invasive technique may enhance postoperative recovery by reducing tissue damage and blood loss.