Treatment Of Lumbar Degenerative Disease Research Articles

A novel technology named as selective fenestration and axial decompression for the surgical management of lumbar degenerative diseases

Study DesignA retrospective study. PurposeTo firstly introduce a new surgical techniquenamed asselectivefenestrationand axial decompression (SFAD) to improvethe surgical treatment effectsof lumbar degenerative diseases. Overview of literaturePosterior lumbar laminectomy and interbody fusion (LIF)is a standard surgical method for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. However, its application has some limitations, and the incidence of spinal cord nerve injury is relatively high. MethodsThisretrospectiveclinicalstudy was conducted fromJanuary 2018 to February2020. A total of 101 eligible patients including 62 men and 39 women withlumbar disc herniation (LDH) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)underwentLIF or SFADwere enrolled in this study.The average postoperative follow-up periodof the LIF and SFAD groups were 20.1 ± 3.7 months and 19.7 ± 4.1 months, respectively.The clinical effects,imaging manifestation,and postoperative complicationsin LIF and SFAD groups were analyzed. ResultsThe operative time, blood loss and hospital stay in SFAD group were significantly lower than those in LIF group (P < 0.05). Significant clinical improvements in VAS and ODIwere achieved in bothLIF and SFAD groupsafter surgery, respectively (P < 0.05).There was no statistical difference in improvements of VAS and ODI betweentheLIFandSFADgroups (P > 0.05).Similarly, improvementsofcobb angle ofoperated segment, intervertebral space height (ISH), intervertebral space foramen (IFH)andlumbar lordosis (LL)showed no statistical differencebetween thetwogroups (P > 0.05).Finally, theprevalence of complicationratesinLIF group were significantlyhigher than theSFADgroup during the follow-up period(P < 0.05) ConclusionsThe application ofSFADto the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases can realize the three-dimensional and precise decompression of spinal cord nerve, whichis one of the ideal alternatives to traditional LIF.

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with modified biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a large cage. Comparative study with minimally invasive microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Studies about the clinical efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway are insufficient. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate clinical usefulness of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an ERAS compared with microscopic TLIF. Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who received modified biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS were grouped into an endoscopic TLIF group. Those who received microscopic TLIF without ERAS were grouped into a microscopic TLIF group. Clinical and radiologic parameters were compared between two groups. Fusion rate was evaluated using sagittal reconstruction images of postoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan. There were 32 patients in the endoscopic TLIF group with ERAS and 41 patients in the microscopic TLIF group without ERAS. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain preoperatively at day one and day two were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the non-ERAS microscopic TLIF group than in the ERAS endoscopic TLIF group. Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved at the last follow-up in both groups. The fusion rate at postoperative one year was 87.5% in the endoscopic TLIF group and 85.4% in the microscopic TLIF group. Biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS pathway may have good aspect to accelerate recovery after surgery. There was no inferiority of fusion rate of endoscopic TLIF comparing to microscopic TLIF. Biportal endoscopic TLIF using a large cage with ERAS pathway may be a good alternative treatment for lumbar degenerative disease.

Safety and Efficacy of Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation Combined with Facet Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

The mainstream lumbar fusion surgeries have various shortcomings, such as complex operation, much invasion, and loss of lumbar function. How to minimize the surgical injury and to achieve better therapeutic effects has become the goal pursued by spine surgeons. This study introduces a cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw fixation combined with facet fusion (FF), evaluates its safety and efficacy, and explores its advantages, in order to provide a reference for treatment of patients with single-level lumbar stenosis or grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical, radiological, and operative data of 167 patients with single-level lumbar stenosis or grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent FF or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) from January 2013 to September 2019 in the spine surgery department of the Second Hospital of Shandong University. Patients were divided into four groups according to surgical method: group CBT-FF, CBT screw combined with FF; group PS-FF, pedicle screw (PS) combined with FF; group CBT-TLIF, CBT screw combined with TLIF; and group PS-TLIF, PS combined with TLIF. The operation time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, complications after surgery, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) of the four groups were compared. The fusion was evaluated by anteroposterior and lateral X-ray, CT scan, and three-dimensional reconstruction. Twelve months after surgery, the fusion rate of four groups had no significantly statistical differences (p = 0.914). VAS and ODI scores were lower after surgery than before. Low back pain VAS scores 1 week after surgery in group CBT-FF and group CBT-TLIF were significantly lower than those in group PS-FF and group PS-TLIF (pCF/PF = 0.001, pCF/PT = 0.000, pPF/CT = 0.049, pCT/PT = 0.000). Low back pain VAS score 3 months after surgery was significantly lower in group CBT-FF than group PS-FF and group PS-TLIF (pCF/PF = 0.045, pCF/PT = 0.008). ODI score 1 week after surgery was significantly lower in group CBT-FF than group PS-FF, group CBT-TLIF, and group PS-TLIF (pCF/PF = 0.000, pCF/CT = 0.005, pCF/PT = 0.000, pCT/PT = 0.015). ODI score 3 months after surgery was significantly lower in group CBT-FF than group PS-FF, group CBT-TLIF, and group PS-TLIF (pCF/PF = 0.001, pCF/CT = 0.002, pCF/PT = 0.000). Incidence of complications did not significantly differ among the groups. CBT screw fixation combined with FF is a safe and efficacious procedure for patients with single-level lumbar stenosis or grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. This minimally invasive approach of lumbar fusion can be simply and easily performed. Patients who undergo CBT screw fixation combined with FF recovered faster than TLIF.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A computer search for the published literature on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and other databases was performed, from which 522 related articles were retrieved and 13 were finally included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and analyzed them using RevMan 5.4. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane systematic analysis and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis showed that the blood loss [95% confidence intervals (CI) (− 121.01, − 54.56), P<0.001\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$P<0.001$$\\end{document}], hospital stay [95% CI (− 1.98, − 0.85), P<0.001\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$P<0.001$$\\end{document}], postoperative fusion rate [95%CI (1.04, 3.60), P=0.04\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$P=0.04$$\\end{document}], postoperative disc height [95% CI (0.50, 3.63), P=0.01\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$P=0.01$$\\end{document}], and postoperative foraminal height [95% CI (0.96, 4.13), P=0.002\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$P=0.002$$\\end{document}] were all better in the OLIF group; however, the complication rates were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF group [95% CI (1.01, 2.06), P=0.04\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$P=0.04$$\\end{document}]. However, there were no significant differences between the two in terms of surgery time, patient satisfaction, or postoperative functional scores. The OLIF group had the advantages of lower blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, a higher postoperative fusion rate, and better recovery of the disc and foraminal heights, whereas MIS-TLIF had a relatively lower complication rate.

Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

network meta-analysis. To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs). A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF published from September 2017 to September 2022 for the treatment of LDD were retrieved. Data were extracted from preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, estimated intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, etc. Thirty-one studies with 3467 patients were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of the 3 procedures, Endo-LIF was superior to MIS-TLIF and OTLIF in terms of reducing EBL, LOS, time to ambulation, and VAS score of back pain. MIS-TLIF was superior to Endo-LIF in terms of ODI improvement, and OTLIF required the shortest intraoperative fluoroscopy time. There was no significant difference in operative time, complication rate, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, or JOA score among the 3 procedures. Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF each have their own advantages and disadvantages and show similar results in many respects, except for better early outcomes achieved with the more minimally invasive procedure.

Radiological outcomes of PEEK rods in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: A minimum 5-year follow-up.

To determine the long-term radiological outcomes of PEEK rods in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Radiological outcomes of cohort cases with lumbar degenerative diseases following PEEK rods were retrospectively studied. Disc height index (DHI) and range of motion (ROM) were measured by x-rays. The CT scans and reconstruction were used to determine screw breakage, rods fracture, screw loosening and intervertebral bony fusion status. The MRI scans were used to evaluate the changes of intervertebral discs at the non-fusion segments and adjacent segments in terms of Pfirrmann Classification. A total of 40 patients completed the mean of 74.8 ± 9.6 months follow-up, with 32 patients undergoing hybrid surgery and 8 patients undergoing non-fusion surgery. The mean DHI changed from preoperative 0.34 to 0.36 at the final follow-up and the ROM declined from 8.8° preoperatively to 3.2° at the final visit, however, both had no statistical differences. Of the 40 levels underwent non-fusion procedure, 9 levels showed disc rehydration with 7 patients from Grade 4 to Grade 3 and 2 patients from Grade 3 to Grade 2. The other 30 cases did not show distinctive change. No screw loosening or rods breakage were detected during the follow-up periods. PEEK rods have obvious protective effects on degenerated intervertebral disc of non-fusion segments and the incidence of complications related to internal fixation is low. PEEK rods pedicle screw system is safe and effective in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) has been gradually applied in clinical practice. UBE has two channels, with good visual field and operating space, and has achieved good results in the treatment of lumbar spine diseases. Some scholars combine UBE with vertebral body fusion to replace traditional open fusion surgery and minimally invasive fusion surgery. The efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, BE-TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) are compared in the efficacy and complicationsof lumbar degenerative diseases. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search literatures related to BE-TLIF before January 2023, to identify relevant studies, and systematically review all literatures. Evaluation indicators mainly include operation time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab. A total of 9 studies were included in this study; a total of 637 patients were collected, and 710 vertebral bodies were treated. Nine studies showed that there was no significant difference in VAS score, ODI, fusion rate, and complication rate between BE-TLIF and MI-TLIF at the final follow-up after surgery. This study suggests that BE-TLIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. BE-TLIF surgery has similar good efficacy to MI-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. And compared with MI-TLIF, it has the advantages of early postoperative relief of low-back pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery (PTES) for Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease in Patients with Underlying Diseases: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 196 Cases.

To evaluate the postoperative outcomes, safety and feasibility of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) in the patients with underlying diseases. From June 2017 to April 2019, PTES was performed to treat 226 patients of single-level LDD. According to clinical background, the patients were divided into two groups. A total of 102 patients with underlying diseases were included in group A. The other 124 LDD patients without underlying diseases were included in group B. The occurrence of postoperative complications was recorded. Leg pain was assessed before, immediately, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after PTES using VAS, and ODI before PTES and 2 years after PTES were recorded. The therapeutic quality (Excellent, Good, Moderate or Poor) was defined according to MacNab grade at 2-year follow-up. No aggravation of underlying diseases or serious complications was observed in all patients within 6 months after the operation. Altogether, 196 patients were followed up for more than 2 years, 89 patients in group A and 107 patients in group B. The VAS score of leg pain and ODI dropped significantly after surgery (P<0.001) in both groups. One case of group B received PTES again due to recurrence 52 months after surgery. According to MacNab, the excellent and good rate was 97.75% (87/89) in group A and 96.26% (103/107) in group B. In operative duration, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, incision length, hospital stay, VAS, ODI, and the excellent and good rate, there was no statistical difference between the two groups. PTES is safe, effective and feasible for the treatment of LDD with underlying diseases, which is comparable to PTES for LDD without underlying diseases. The entrance point of PTES (Gu's Point) is located at the corner of the flat back turning to the lateral side. PTES is not only a minimally invasive surgical technique but also includes a postoperative care system for preventing LDD recurrence.

Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are two commonly used procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but the efficacy of the two procedures is not clear. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for controlled studies of OLIF and TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Include all articles published before Oct 2022. Two researchers conducted quality evaluation and data extraction on the research respectively. Results: This meta-analysis finally included 27 studies. The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups decreased significantly after the operation. The decrease of the visual Analogue Score (VAS) and The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the OLIF group was greater than that in the TLIF group within 6 months after the operation, but no difference was found in the follow-up for more than 6 months. The OLIF group was better than TLIF in restoring the lumbar lordosis angle and intervertebral height. The operation time, blood loss and hospital stay of the OLIF group were less than those of the TLIF group, and there was no significant difference between the two in terms of surgical complications and fusion rate. Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference between the OLIF and TLIF groups in terms of long-term pain relief and functional improvement, the OLIF group experienced greater short-term efficacy than the TLIF group and the surgical safety of OLIF was better than that of TLIF.

Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with different internal fixation methods in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases

Objective: To compare the efficacy among stand-alone oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF-SA), OLIF combined with lateral screw internal fixation (OLIF-AF) and OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation (OLIF-PF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: The clinical data of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent OLIF-SA, OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF in the Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2017 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients' visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 week and 12 months postoperatively were recorded, and efficacy of OLIF surgery with different internal fixation methods was evaluated by comparing clinical scores and imaging examinations at preoperative, postoperative and follow-up, and bony fusion and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: A total of 71 patients were included in the study, with 23 males and 48 females, aged (65±11) (34-88) years. There were 25 patients in the OLIF-SA group, 19 patients in the OLIF-AF group, and 27 patients in the OLIF-PF group. Compared with those of OLIF-PF group [(196±46) min and 50 (50, 60) ml], OLIF-SA and OLIF-AF groups had shorter operative time [(97±38) min and (118±48) min] and less intraoperative blood loss [20 (10, 50) ml and 40 (20, 50) ml] (both P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the fusion rate among three groups (P>0.05). No statistically significant differences of VAS and ODI scores were observed among OLIF-SA, OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF groups during preoperative period [VAS: 5.0 (4.0, 6.0), 5.0 (4.0, 6.0) and 5.0 (4.0, 5.3); ODI: 44.0% (35.0%, 47.0%), 46.5% (43.3%, 46.5%) and 43.5% (35.8%, 46.0%)], and at one week postoperatively [VAS: 2.0 (2.0, 3.0), 3.0 (2.0, 3.0) and 2.0 (2.0, 3.0); ODI: 13.0% (12.0%, 18.0%), 21.0% (13.5%, 21.8%) and 16.5%(14.0%, 21.0%)] and final follow-up [VAS: 1.0 (0, 1.0), 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) and 1.0 (1.0, 2.0); ODI: 7.0% (5.0%, 11.0%), 10.0% (7.0%, 14.8%) and 8.0% (6.0%, 12.0%)], respectively (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF, OLIF-SA is a safe and effective surgical method with similar efficacy and fusion rates, decreases the cost of internal fixation, and reduces intraoperative time blood loss.

Clinical Efficacy of Bilateral Decompression Using Biportal Endoscopic Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

The study purpose was to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in terms of surgical trauma and short-to medium-term postoperative results. Forty-nine patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (25 underwent ULIF, 24 underwent MIS-TLIF) who were treated between May 2019 and October 2021, were included in this retrospective analysis. We compared the 2 groups' blood loss, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and slip percentage (SP). The modified Macnab score was obtained at the last follow-up. On the postoperative day, the CRP levels (P < 0.05) were considerably lower in the ULIF group than those in the MIS-TLIF group. In addition, the ULIF group had significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss (P= 0.00) and postoperative blood loss (P= 0.00). After surgery, there was significant improvement in both groups in the VAS scores for low back and leg pain and in the ODI scores (P < 0.05). Two weeks after surgery, the ODI and VAS scores for low back pain of the ULIF group were considerably lower than those of the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rates of the Macnab criteria between the 2 groups were not significantly different at the last follow-up (P= 0.95). The ULIF technique can effectively treat short-segment lumbar degenerative diseases and is a feasible alternative to the traditional minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of oblique and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: An updated meta-analysis.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the clinical and radiological effects of these two techniques. A search of relevant literature from several databases was conducted until November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, clinical and radiological results, and complications were analyzed. Fifteen qualified studies were included. OLIF showed a shorter operative time and length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF. Early postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain were significantly lower in OLIF than in TLIF (P = 0.004). Noteworthy, although the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of the OLIF group was higher than that of the TLIF group (P = 0.04), the postoperative ODI was significantly lower (P < 0.05). Radiologically, the results showed that the disc and foraminal heights of OLIF were significantly higher than those of TLIF postoperatively. Moreover, OLIF can restore more segmental lordosis than TLIF in the early postoperative period. Furthermore, OLIF showed better fusion rates than TLIF (P = 0.02), with no difference in cage subsidence (13.4% vs. 16.6%). No significant differences in overall and approach-related complications between the two groups. The OLIF group showed an advantage in terms of operative time, hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, early back pain relief, postoperative function recovery, disc and foraminal heights, early segmental lordosis, and fusion rate compared to TLIF. For both procedures, the incidence rates of overall and approach-related complications were comparable.

How to predict the culprit segment in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery under local anesthesia for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases? Radiologic images or clinical symptoms.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) is a novel, minimally invasive technique used to treat lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs). PTES under local anesthesia was performed to treat the culprit segment of LDDs predicted by radiologic images or clinical symptoms, and the efficacy, security, and feasibility were evaluated. Eighty-seven cases of LDDs with nerve root symptoms, which were not consistent with lumbar degenerative levels and degrees on MRI and CT, were treated with PTES under local anesthesia in a day surgery ward from January 2015 to December 2019. Forty-two patients, whose culprit segments were predicted by radiologic images, were included in group A. The other 45 patients, whose culprit segments were predicted by clinical symptoms, were included in group B. Leg pain VAS and ODI scores before and after PTES were recorded. The outcome was defined according to the MacNab grade at the 2-year follow-up. Postoperative complications were recorded. In group A, 2 patients underwent PTES for one segment, 37 patients underwent PTES for two segments, and 3 patients underwent PTES for three segments. One of the one-segment PTES patients had no relief from symptoms and underwent another PTES for other culprit segments 3 months after surgery. In group B, 44 of 45 patients were treated using PTES for one segment and 1 patient was treated for two segments. Group B showed significantly less operative duration, less blood loss, and less fluoroscopy frequency than group A (p < 0.001). The leg pain VAS score and the ODI score significantly decreased after the operation in both groups (p < 0.001), and the excellent and good rates were 97.6% (41/42) in group A and 100% (45/45) in group B at the 2-year follow-up. The leg pain VAS score of group B was significantly lower than that of group A immediately and 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after surgery (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in ODI scores and the excellent and good rates between the two groups. No complications, such as wound infection or permanent nerve injury, were observed. It is much more accurate to predict the culprit segment according to clinical symptoms than radiologic images in PTES under local anesthesia for surgical treatment of LDDs.

Effects of age and co-morbidities on complication rate in surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a prospective clinical study

Effects of age and co-morbidities on complication rate in surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a prospective clinical study

Biomechanical Effect of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization Implant on the Segmental Motion and Intradiscal Pressure in Human Lumbar Spine.

The hybrid dynamic stabilization system, Dynesys-Transition-Optima, represents a novel pedicle-based construct for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The theoretical advantage of this system is to stabilize the treated segment and preserve the range of motion within the adjacent segment while potentially decreasing the risk of adjacent segment disease following lumbar arthrodesis. Satisfactory short-term outcomes were previously demonstrated in the Dynesys-Transition-Optima system. However, long-term follow-up reported accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments and segmental instability above the fusion level. This study investigated the biomechanical effects of the Dynesys-Transition-Optima system on segment motion and intradiscal pressure at adjacent and implanted levels. Segmental range of motion and intradiscal pressure were evaluated under the conditions of the intact spine, with a static fixator at L4-5, and implanted with DTO at L3-4 (Dynesys fixator) and L4-5 (static fixator) by applying the loading conditions of flexion/extension (±7.5 Nm) and lateral bending (±7.5 Nm), with/without a follower preload of 500 N. Our results showed that the hybrid Dynesys-Transition-Optima system can significantly reduce the ROM at the fusion level (L4-L5), whereas the range of motion at the adjacent level (L3-4) significantly increased. The increase in physiological loading could be an important factor in the increment of IDP at the intervertebral discs at the lumbar spine. The Dynesys-Transition-Optima system can preserve the mobility of the stabilized segments with a lesser range of motion on the transition segment; it may help to prevent the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration. However, the current study cannot cover all the issues of adjacent segmental diseases. Future investigations of large-scale and long-term follow-ups are needed.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion in heterogenous lumbar diseases: Anterolateral screw fixation vs. posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation - A single center experience.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a type of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique used for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiographic efficacy of OLIF with anterolateral screw fixation alone and OLIF requiring fixation with conventional posterior percutaneous pedicle screws for lumbar diseases. Medical records of consecutive patients admitted to Cheng-Hsin Hospital who received OLIF between January 2019 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups by screw fixation: patients who received anterolateral screw fixation alone were defined as one-stage OLIF (n = 9) and patients who received fixation with conventional posterior percutaneous pedicle screw were defined as two-stage OLIF (n = 16). Patient clinical characteristics, medical history, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, peri-operative, and post-operative complications were evaluated in all patients. During the study period, a total of 25 patients were successfully treated with OLIF (n = 9 one-stage; n = 16 two-stage). Two-stage OLIF was associated with longer operation times, longer hospital stays, shorter bed-rest time, and a greater likelihood of having a blood transfusion compared with the one-stage OLIF group. A higher proportion of grade I subsidence was observed at 6 months and 1 year after surgery in the two-stage group compared with the one-stage group. Post-operative complications included ileus, dystonia, and dystonia were higher in the two-stage OLIF group. Improvements in radiographic parameters were demonstrated after OLIF, and the improvements were comparable between one-stage and two-stage OLIF. One-stage OLIF is a feasible and efficacious treatment method for single- and multiple-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Additional clinical follow-up is necessary to confirm long-term outcomes.

Radiological and clinical outcomes of midline lumbar fusion on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters for degenerative lumbar diseases.

Improving the sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters after fusion surgery is important for improving clinical outcomes. The impact of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) on sagittal lumbar-pelvic alignment for the management of degenerative lumbar diseases is still unknown. To analyze the effects of short-segment MIDLF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters. We retrospectively analyzed 63 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent single-segment MIDLF or MIS-TLIF. The imaging data of patients were collected before surgery and at the final follow-up. The radiological sagittal parameters included the lumbar lordosis (LL), lower LL, L4 slope (L4S), L5 slope (L5S), L5 incidence (L5I), L1 axis and S1 distance (LASD), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch (PI-LL). Additionally, the clinical outcomes, including lower back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, were also analyzed. In both groups, LL and Lower LL significantly increased, while L5I and LASD significantly decreased at the final follow-up compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). In the MIDLF group, L4S significantly decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05), while the mean SS significantly increased and the PT significantly decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). In the MIS-TLIF group, SS slightly increased and the mean PT value decreased compared to that recorded prior to operation, but without a statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the PI-LL in both groups was significantly reduced compared to that recorded prior to operation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters between the two groups prior to operation and at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). In addition, the change in sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters did not differ significantly, except for ΔLASD within the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean lower back and leg pain VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved three months after surgery and at the final follow-up. Though the mean ODI score in the MIDLF group three months after surgery was slightly higher than that in the MIS-TLIF group, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final follow-up. Short-segment MIDLF and MIS-TLIF can equally improve sagittal lumbar parameters such as LL, Lower LL, L5I, and LASD in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. However, MIDLF had a larger impact on pelvic parameters than MIS-TLIF.

Hidden blood loss of minimally invasive hybrid lumbar interbody fusion: an analysis of influencing factors

BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion(LIF) is the leading way to treat Lumbar Degenerative Diseases(LDD). At present, there is a lack of research on the influencing factors of hidden blood loss in minimally invasive hybrid lumbar interbody fusion. This study comprehensively explores the definite factors affecting the hidden blood loss in minimally invasive hybrid lumbar interbody fusion.Materials and methodsOne hundred patients with Lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent minimally invasive hybrid lumbar interbody fusion in our center were included. Demographics, laboratory data, surgical data, and radiographic data were collected. The Gross equation and Sehat equation were used to calculate the estimated value of hidden blood loss. Multi-factor linear regression analysis was used to determine the influencing factors of hidden blood loss.ResultWe reviewed and collected 100 patients who underwent minimally invasive hybrid approach, mean age 65 ± 10 years, male: female 37:63; 17 patients of diabetes and 83 patients of non-diabetes; Total blood loss was 645.59 ± 376.37 ml, hidden blood loss was 421.39 ± 337.45 ml, the hidden blood loss percentage was 57 ± 26%. Results from the multi-factorial linear regression model: Diabetes (p < 0.05), hypertension (p < 0.05), psoas thickness (p < 0.05) and dorsal extensor group thickness (p < 0.05) were potential risk factors for postoperative hidden blood loss.ConclusionAlthough minimally invasive hybrid approach is minimally invasive surgery, there is still a significant amount of hidden blood loss. There is a greater risk of blood loss in diabetes, hypertension and preoperative MRI assessment of thickness of the psoas, thickness of the dorsal extensor group.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Complications Between Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). With the development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) can also achieve adequate decompression and interbody fusion. However, whether Endo-TLIF is superior to MIS-TLIF has not been adequately studied. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the treatment difference between Endo-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with Endo-TLIF vs. MIS-TLIF for the treatment of LDD. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases for studies published up to April 1, 2022. Both retrospective and prospective studies that compared between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were included. A total of 8 studies involving 581 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. Endo-TLIF significantly prolonged the operation time, but reduced the blood loss amount and length of hospital stay. Moreover, Endo-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF on relief of back pain and functional recovery in the early postoperative period. However, there were no significantly differences in long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rate and incidence of complications between Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Endo-TLIF was similar to MIS-TLIF in the long-term clinical outcomes, fusion and complication rates. Endo-TLIF prolongs the operation time, but shortens the length of hospital stay, and has the advantages of less surgical trauma, less blood loss, faster recovery, and early postoperative back pain relief.

Comparison between single-segment Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a single center retrospective study over 4 years

ObjectivePosterior instrumented fusion is the most widely accepted surgical treatment for spinal stenosis and disc herniation. However, fusion can affect daily activities due to lumbar stiffness. In recent years, dynamic stabilization has been introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion, however, it is inconclusive whether dynamic stabilization requires the maintenance of a level of activity that is closer to the physiological state of activity for better clinical efficacy. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of dynamic stabilization with different levels of activity (Isobar EVO and TTL) in the treatment of spinal stenosis and disc herniation.MethodsThis study retrospectively reviewed 80 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who were undergoing surgical treatment between March 2014 and July 2018. 41 patients (EVO group) and 39 patients (TTL group) underwent fenestrated decompression with Isobar EVO stabilization and Isobar TTL stabilization, respectively. Clinical outcomes, radiographic data, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsAt an average follow-up of 52.23 ± 2.97 months, there were no significant differences in the oswestry disability index (ODI) (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VASback) and visual analog scale for the leg pain (VASleg) of the EVO group were lower compared with the TTL group (P < 0.05). The range of motion (ROM) of operated segments were significantly higher in the EVO group as compared to the TTL group (P < 0.05). The intervertebral space height (ISH) of upper adjacent segments were significantly higher in the EVO group as compared to the TTL group (P < 0.05). The overall complications were less in the EVO group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).ConclusionBoth Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and TTL dynamic stabilization can improve clinical outcomes of patients with spinal stenosis and disc herniation. Isobar EVO has advantages over Isobar TTL in terms of improving low back and leg pain, maintaining mobility of the operated segment, and preventing further degeneration of the upper adjacent segment.