Treatment Of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Research Articles

OLIF联合后路经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定技术与传统TLIF治疗腰椎滑脱症的近期疗效对比

OLIF联合后路经皮椎弓根螺钉内固定技术与传统TLIF治疗腰椎滑脱症的近期疗效对比

Research progress of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique in treatment of lumbar related diseases

To review the application and research progress of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of lumbar related diseases. The domestic and foreign literature on the application of UBE technique in the treatment of lumbar related diseases was extensively consulted, and the development history, clinical application, operation points and precautions, related complications and adverse reactions, advantages and disadvantages of the technique were reviewed. As a minimally invasive technique developed in recent years, UBE technique is effective in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by different causes, with satisfactory decompression effect, less damage, and good lumbar stability. UBE technique has significant advantages over open surgery and microscopy-assisted surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. In the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, the postoperative trauma of UBE technique is less than that of conventional surgery, and the fusion rate is satisfactory. There are also complications such as spinal cord injury, spinal epidural hematoma, incomplete decompression or recurrence, nerve root irritation symptoms, and postoperative infection in the treatment of lumbar related diseases with UBE technique. Detailed preoperative planning is essential for patients with lumbar related diseases who are suitable for UBE surgery. UBE technique is easy to operate, has a gentle learning curve, can use conventional instruments, and has definite effectiveness. It is suitable for a variety of lumbar related diseases, but there are some defects and deficiencies.

Effect of MED-TLIF Combined with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation on Function and Spinal Pelvic Parameters in Patients with Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Background Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common clinical spinal lesion. The upper vertebral body of the patient is displaced relative to the lower vertebral body, causing spinal instability and nerve compression. The clinical manifestations are low back and leg pain, abnormal lower limb sensation, and intermittent rupture. In severe cases, cauda equina syndrome and paraplegia may occur. Minimally invasive spinal surgery has developed rapidly in recent years and become the preferred treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Objective The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis under microscope. Methods The clinical and surgical data of 106 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated in our hospital were selected and divided into research group (56 cases) according to surgical methods (MIS-TLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation). The other 50 patients were treated with traditional open percutaneous intervertebral foramen fusion (control group). The surgical trauma-related indicators, visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores before and after surgery, modified Japanese Orthopedic Association low back pain score (JOA), bone graft fusion effect, spinal pelvic parameters, and surgical complications of the two groups were statistically analyzed in detail. Results The incision length, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospitalization time in the research group were lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score and JOA score between the two groups before operation (P > 0.05). The VAS score and JOA score of the research group were lower than those of the control group on the first day after operation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score and JOA score between the two groups at 1 month and 3 months after operation (P > 0.05). Six months, 12 months, and 18 months after operation, the bone graft fusion rates in the research group were 42.86%, 73.21%, and 94.64%, respectively, and those in the control group were 40.00%, 68.00%, and 92.00%, respectively, with no significant difference (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in PI, PT, SS, LL, TK, LSJA, and SVA between the two groups before and 6 months after operation (P > 0.05). At 6 months after operation, the PT and TK values of the two groups were higher than those before operation (P < 0.05), and the SS, LL, LSJA, and SVA values of the two groups were lower than those before operation (P < 0.05). The complication rate of the research group was 3.57%, which was lower than 18.00% of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion MIS-TLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis has the same effect as traditional open surgery and has the same correction effect for spinal pelvic parameters, but it has the advantages of less trauma and fewer complications.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients

BackgroundTo observe the clinical efficacy of an anterior single rob-screw fixation (ASRSF) combined with the oblique lumbar intervertebral fusion (OLIF) approach compared with a posterior percutaneous screw fixation (PPSF) combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodThis is a retrospective case–control study. Patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) treated with either ASRSF combined with OLIF or PPSF combined with OLIF from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled in this study. None of the patients had posterior decompression. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) were used for clinical efficacy assessment. The pre- and post-operational disc height, height of foramen, subsidence, and migration of cages, fusion rate and surgery-related complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsFifty-three patients were included in this single-center study. According to the fixation methods, patients were divided into the ASRSF group (group A, 25 cases) and the PPSF group (group B, 28 cases). There was no statistical difference in surgery-related complications between groups. There was a significant difference in the VAS score at one-week post-surgery (2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.5 ± 0.4, P = 0.01), and three months post-operation (2.2 ± 0.3 vs. 3.0 ± 0.3, P = 0.01). Comparison of post-operative imaging data showed that there was a significant difference in the height of the foramen between groups at three months post-surgery(18.1 ± 2.3 mm vs. 16.9 ± 1.9 mm, P = 0.04). At 24 months post-surgery, the ODI was 12.65 ± 3.6 in group A and 19.1 ± 3.4 in group B (P = 0.01). Twelve months after surgery, the fusion rate in group A at 72.0% and 78.6% in group B was not statistically significant (P = 0.75). Fusion was identified in all patients at 24 months post-surgery.ConclusionWhen compared to PPSF, ASRSF combined with OLIF for DLS can reduce post-operative low back pain in the initial stages, maintain the height of the foramen and improve the performance of lumbar function.

Comparative study on effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic and Wiltse-approach transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) and Wiltse-approach TLIF (W-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. The clinical data of 47 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria between July 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, in which 21 patients were treated with PE-TLIF (PE-TLIF group) and 26 patients were treated with W-TLIF (W-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, disease duration, level of spondylolisthesis vertebrae, spondylolisthesis degree, spondylolisthesis type, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and the disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and Taillard index (TI) of the operated vertebrae ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative bedridden time, and complications were compared between the two groups. The VAS score and JOA score were used to evaluate the improvement of pain and function. At last follow-up, DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae were measured by X-ray films, and lumbar CT was performed to evaluate the interbody fusion. Compared with W-TLIF group, the operation time in PE-TLIF group was significantly longer, but the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were significantly less, and the postoperative bedridden time was significantly shorter ( P<0.05). There were 2 cases of transient lower limb radiating pain in PE-TLIF group and 1 case of superficial incision infection in W-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (9.5% vs. 3.8%) between the two groups ( χ 2=0.037, P=0.848). The patients in both groups were followed up 12-24 months, with an average of 17.3 months in PE-TLIF group and 17.7 months in W-TLIF group. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the JOA scores of the two groups significantly improved at each time point after operation when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). Compared with W-TLIF group, the VAS scores of low back pain in PE-TLIF group significantly lower at 3 days and 3 months after operation ( P<0.05), and the JOA score of PE-TLIF group was significantly higher at 3 months after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in each score at any other time point between the two groups ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the DH, SL, and TI of operated vertebrae of the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the differences of each parameter between the two groups ( P>0.05). According to Suk's standard, the fusion rates of PE-TLIF group and W-TLIF group were 90.5% (19/21) and 92.3% (24/26), respectively, with no significant difference ( χ 2=0.000, P=1.000). At last follow-up, there was no case of Cage sunk into the adjacent vertebral body, or dislodgement of Cage anteriorly or posteriorly in both groups. PE-TLIF and W-TLIF are both effective in the treatment of grade Ⅰ and Ⅱ lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although the operation time is prolonged, PE-TLIF has less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, shorter postoperative bedridden time, and can get more obvious short-term improvement of low back pain and function.

A Prospective Randomized Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Cost utility from a Lower-middle-income Country Perspective and Review of Literature

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis have not been validated in many prospective randomized trials. AIM: We aimed to validate the safety and efficacy of TLIF and PLIF surgery in lumbar spondylolisthesis using the clinical, radiographic, and cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: The data of surgically treated single-level spondylolisthesis patients were randomized prospectively into two groups. The groups were compared regarding demographics, perioperative complications, hospital stay, total expenditure, fusion rate, and clinical outcomes (visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication scale, and Odom’s criteria). A review of literature was done to compare the outcomes with the ones from higher-income nations. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent prospective randomization. The improvement in the clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up showed improvement in the TLIF group more than the PLIF group but with no significant difference. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the PLIF (p &lt; 0.05), also, the blood loss was significantly less in the TLIF (p &lt; 0.001). The complications frequency did not show any statistical significance between both groups and no significant difference in the patient’s post-operative patient satisfaction (p = 0.6). The mean hospital stay was non-significantly longer in the PLIF (p = 0.7). At 12-month follow-up, 93.3% of the TLIF patients were fused versus 86.7% of the PLIF (p = 0.5). The total cost of the TLIF was significantly less (p &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both PLIF and TLIF could achieve similar fusion rates and clinical satisfaction in the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. The TLIF group was significantly better in terms of financial burden, operative time, and blood loss.

Clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of transforaminal interbody fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

article: Clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of transforaminal interbody fusion combined with pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis - Minerva Medica 2022 December;113(6):1034-6 - Minerva Medica - Journals

Effects and Safety of Lumbar Fusion Techniques in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Study Design:Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Objectives:Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common indication for spinal fusion. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is popular method to achieve arthrodesis, but previous syntheses usually used head-to-head comparison of 2 surgical methods, and no of them pooled analysis with high-quality. This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out to simultaneously compare fusion techniques in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.Methods:Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. After critical appraisal, fusion rate, overall adverse events, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index, and pain were extracted for analysis. We conduced network meta-analysis using contrast-based method. Primary outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).Results:Fifteen RCTs (n = 992) met our eligibility criteria. The RCTs treated patients posterolateral fusion (PLF), posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF, extreme lateral LIF (XLIF), and circumferential fusion. The pooled estimate showed that circumferential fusion led to significantly higher fusion rate than PLF (RR = 2.15, 95%CI:1.41–3.28), PLIF (RR = 2.11, 95%CI:1.38–3.22), TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.39–3.27), MIS-TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.35–3.35), and XLIF (RR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.25–3.22). Moreover, circumferential fusion exhibited the best balance in probability between fusion rate and adverse event rate. No evidence showed inconsistency or small-study effect in the results.Conclusions:Collectively, circumferential fusion might be worth to be recommended because it exhibits the best balance between fusion rate and overall adverse event. PLF is still an inferior procedure and requires shorter operative time.

The technical feasibility and preliminary results of minimally invasive endoscopic-TLIF based on electromagnetic navigation: a case series

BackgroundUniportal full endoscopic posterolateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is a promising, minimally invasive method for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, repeated radiation exposure from X-rays and the steep learning curve remain to be improved.MethodsThis retrospective study explored the effects of electromagnetic navigation on improving Endo-TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Clinical information from 42 patients who had received Endo-TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation from May 2019 to November 2020 was analyzed retrospectively. The procedures were assisted under electromagnetic navigation. The rate of adjustment for guide wires, frequency of X-ray exposure, operative time, accuracy of pedicle screw location, and clinical outcomes were recorded.ResultsThe mean follow-up for 42 patients was 11.9 ± 3.1 months. The mean age of the patients was 56.1 ± 9.26 years, with a female/male ratio of 25:17. According to postoperative CT scans and 3D reconstructions, the excellent and good rate of pedicle screws was 96.4%. The rate of adjustment for guide wires under the assistance of electromagnetic navigation was 1.78%, and the frequency of X-ray exposure was 8.27 ± 1.83. The operative time was 167.25 ± 28.16 min, including the duration of guide wire insertion (14.63 ± 5.45 min) and duration of decompression and cage placement (75.43 ± 13.97 min). The duration of hospitalization after operation was 2.59 ± 1.16 days. The preoperative VAS score was 7.51 ± 1.91, and the preoperative ODI was 82.42 ± 8.7%. At the last follow-up, the VAS score was 2.09 ± 0.59, and the ODI was 11.09 ± 3.2%. There were statistically significant improvements in the VAS score and ODI in all patients at the follow-up (p < 0.05).ConclusionsElectromagnetic navigation can provide accurate positioning and guidance in real time, which improves the surgical efficiency of percutaneous pedicle screw placement and endoscopic decompression in Endo-TLIF with reduced radiation exposures.

Clinical Application of CT Navigation in treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Minimally Invasive Surgery - Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Objective:To explore the clinical effect of the application of CT navigation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis with minimally invasive surgery - transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).Methods:A retrospective study was conducted on 30 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who were continuously treated in linyi central hospital from May 2018 to March 2019.The patients were divided into two groups,15 patients treated with MIS-TLIF with the aid of CT navigation during the operation were included into an observation group. Another 15 patients were treated with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as the control group. The baseline information, including gender, age and course of disease, perioperative period and imaging conditions, and VAS and ODI scores of patients in the two groups were collected and analyzed.Results:Fifteen patients were included into the observation group, including 9 male and 6 female patients with an average age of 52.60 ± 6.31 and a course of disease of 16.33 ± 6.00 months. The other 15 patients were included into the observation group, including seven male and eight female patients with an average age of 52.87 ± 7.38 and a course of disease of 19.13 ± 9.89 months. The difference in the gender, age and course of disease between the two groups had no statistical significance (P > 0.05). However, the difference in the duration of operation and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups had statistical significance (P< 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in wound complications, neurological complications, preoperative slippage rate, postoperative slippage rate, slippage reduction rate and screw placement accuracy (P > 0.05). VAS scores of the two groups were statistically significant from six months after surgery (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in ODI between the two groups at any time point (P >, 0.05). VAS and ODI scores were improved at each time point compared with those before surgery.Conclusion:The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion performed with the aid of CT navigation during the operation shortens the duration of operation and the amount of bleeding, reduces the back pain, is beneficial to the early postoperative functional exercise, and speeds up the postoperative recovery.

Comparative Analysis of Decompression Versus Decompression and Fusion for Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

When lumbar stenosis involves spondylolisthesis, many surgeons include fixation. Two recent trials have shown no consensus to definitive treatment. We aimed to add to the discourse of fusion versus decompression in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis by providing a large-scale generalizable study. We used multicenter, prospectively collected data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare 30-day outcomes for decompression alone versus combination decompression and fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the effect of surgical type on multiple characteristics. Univariate 2-tailed χ2 analyses were used to identify further outcome differences. In total, 9606 patients with treated lumbar spondylolisthesis were identified (907 decompression only, 8699 decompression and fusion). The fusion group tended to be younger (P < 0.001) and was more likely to be smokers (P= 0.01). Unplanned return to surgery was 3.02% in the fusion group, compared with 1.02% (P= 0.011). Minor adverse events occurred in 12.8% of the fusion group versus 4.9% (P < 0.001). Major adverse events occurred in 4.5% of the fusion group versus 3.1% (P= 0.0498). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality, prolonged admission, or 30-day readmission. Unplanned return to the operating room and major and minor adverse events were greater for patients undergoing fusion. This could influence future decision-making in lumbar spondylolisthesis. This study indicates that further investigation is warranted but that decompression may be associated with less morbidity in the properly selected patient.

RhBMP in lumber fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP) and iliac crest autograft in the fusion treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsThe studies using randomized controlled trials to compare the rhBMP with iliac crest autograft in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis were retrieved from Embase, Pubmed, ProQuest dissertations & theses (PQDT), China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Database, Wanfang Data, Cochrane Library (from March 1998 to March 2018). Postoperative fusion rate, clinical success rate, postoperative intervertebral height, complications, operation time, blood loss and duration of hospitalization were chosen as the outcome indicators. Methodological quality of the trials was critically assessed, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical software Revman 5.3 was used for data-analysis. ResultsEleven articles were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that, comparing the efficacy of rhBMP with iliac crest autograft, statistical significance was found in the 24-month fusion rate post operation [95% CI (1.38, 24.70), p = 0.02] and operation time [95% CI (−14.22, −2.08), p = 0.008]. There is not sufficient evidence for statistical differences in the remaining indicators. ConclusionThe current literature shows rhBMP is a safe and effective grafting material in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Further evidence is dependent on the emergence of more randomized controlled trials with higher quality and larger sample sizes in the future.

The efficacy and complications of minimally invasive vs. the traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbarinterbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Total 142 patients with single level spondylolisthesis who treated by TLIF from 2010.01 to 2015.06 were included in this study, with 68 cases in minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) group and 74 cases in traditional open TLIF group. The general information (age, gender, isthmic or degenerative type, percentage of slip degree, levels), operative time, blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of lowback pain and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were recorded and collected. The posterior height of the intervertebralpace and segmental lordosis, reduction of spondylolisthesis and cross-sectional area of spinal canal were measured. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in age, gender ratio, percentage of slip degree, and surgicallevels distribution. Total of 66 cases in MIS-TLIF group and 71 cases in Open TLIF group finished 2 years follow up, and 25 cases in MIS-TLIF group and 31 cases in Open TLIF group finished 5 years follow up. The blood loss of the MIS-TLIF group was 164.7±51.7 ml, significantly lower than the open TLIF group of 239±69.3 ml(P<0.001). The length of postoperative hospital stay was 5.9±1.5 days in MIS-TLIF group, significantly shorter than the open TLIF group of 7.3±3.1 days(P<0.001). The operative time of MIS-TLIF and Open TLIF was 146.3±21.9 mins, 152.0±20.4 mins, respectively, and no significant difference was found between them. The VAS ofback pain, leg pain, ODI in MIS-TLIF group was 1.76±1.16, 1.91±1.36 and 23.5±7.3 at 2 years follow up, and in Open TLIF was 1.73±1.10, 1.83±1.36 and 23.8±6.7, respectively, all of them were significantly different to pre-operation, however, no significant difference was found between two groups. The VAS of back pain, leg pain, ODI in MIS-TLIF group was 1.73±1.21, 1.93±1.48, and 25.4±6.8 at 5years follow up, and in Open TLIF was 1.85±1.02, 1.85±1.33 and 26.1±6.5, respectively, no significant difference between twogroups. The posterior height of the intervertebral space and segmental lordosis of MIS-TLIF was 9.52±1.67 mm and 12.11°±3.44° at 2 years follow up, while the open TLIF was 9.88±1.54 mm and 12.98±3.83°, all of them were significantly different to pre-operation,however, no significant difference between two groups. The posterior height of the intervertebral space and segmental lordosis of MIS-TLIF was 9.37±1.46 mm and 11.55°±2.77°, while the open TLIF was 9.66±1.68 mm and 12.59°±4.23°, no significant difference between two groups. The percentage of slip degree was reduced to 5.2%±4.6% in MIS-TLIF and 5.6%±4.3% in open TLIF, the cross-sectional area of spinal canal was enlarged to 139.7±19.5 mm2 and 141.7±20.7 mm2, no significant difference between two groups either. Conclusion MIS-TLIF has less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay than open TLIF, and similar clinical pain and functional outcomes. MIS-TLIF is suggested to be a safe and effective choice in the treatment of lower grade lumbar spondylolisthesis(Grade II or less). Key words: Lumbar vertebrae; Spondylolysis; Surgical procedures, minimally invasive; Spinal fusion

Bilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (degree II or III) through muscle-splitting approach

Objective To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of bilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (degree II or III) through muscle-splitting approach. Methods There were 52 patients (16 males and 36 females) analyzed in our study from January 2012 to December 2015. The average age was 54.9±7.21 years (from 35 to 70 years). The history of disease was from 10 months to 15 years, with an average of 66.6±32.71 months. Diagnosis included: degenerative spondylolisthesis in 2 cases, and isthmic spondylolysis in 50 cases. The sites included L4,5 in 18 cases and L5S1 in 34 cases. The degree was II in 35 cases and III in 17 cases. 27 cases were treated by bilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with interbody fusion through median incision approach (open group) and 25 cases through muscle-splitting approach (minimally invasive group). The clinical and imaging results were observed and compared between the two groups, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative incision drainage, VAS score of lumbar incision pain at 72h post-operative, intraoperative and postoperative complications, interbody fusion rate, multifidus muscle areas and grades at 1 year post-operative, and the improvement of ODI index. Results All the cases were operated successfully. The operation time of open group was shorter than minimally invasive group. However, the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative incision drainage of minimally invasive group was statistically less than open group. The VAS scores of postoperative 72 h were 3.25 (2 to 6) in open group and 1.62 (1 to 3) in minimally invasive group. And the difference was statistically significant. The misplacement rate of pedicle screws of minimally invasive group was lower than open group. The average follow-up time was 25.5 months (ranged from 12 to 36 months). The multifidus muscle areas and grades of minimally invasive group were superior to open group at 1 year postoperatively. Compared to preoperative, the slipping angle, slipping rate, sacral inclination angle and vertebral space height were significant improved after operation in two groups. The ODI index was improved postoperatively in both two groups, and the difference was statistically significant at the final follow-up. The interbody fusion rate was 92.6% in open group and 96% in minimally invasive group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. No cerebrospinal fluid leak, never injury, pedicle fracture or wound infection was found after the operation in two groups. There was no pedicle screw loosening, cage shifting, or degeneration of the adjacent segment observed during follow-up. Conclusion Bilateral pedicle screw fixation combined with interbody fusion through muscle-splitting approach has advantages of small incision, less trauma, less bleeding, quick recovery and well clinical results, which can be a better choice in treating lumbar spondylolisthesis (degree II or III). Key words: Lumbar vertebrae; Spondylolysis; Surgical procedures, minimally invasive; Spinal fusion

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 10:35 AM – 12:00 PM Understanding Lumbar Stenosis/Spondylolisthesis: 16. Association of surgical invasiveness with readmission following surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Surgical treatment for lumbar spondylolisthesis is often considered for those who have failed nonoperative care, especially with persistent or recurrent symptoms, progressive displacement, or worsening functional decline. Criteria for selecting surgical candidates are variable, and decisions about what type of operation to perform is discretionary. Wide heterogeneity in surgical procedure invasiveness reflects a lack of evidence on effectiveness and highlights the need to expand comparative effectiveness research that incorporates patient-reported outcomes. PURPOSE To examine the association of repeat spine operation (1-year), wound problem (90-day), and all-cause re-hospitalization (90-day) with surgical invasiveness in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective analysis of spondylolisthesis data from the High Value Healthcare Collaborative, a network of diverse U.S. health systems. PATIENT SAMPLE We included patients (n=884) undergoing decompression or fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis, excluding those with significant comorbidity or device removal/revision procedures. OUTCOME MEASURES The Surgical Invasiveness Index was calculated using a previously validated method based on Current Procedural Terminology codes. Safety outcomes reported in the High Value Healthcare Collaborative network including rate of repeat lumbar surgery, readmission, and wound problems were also analyzed. METHODS Logistic regression with site-specific robust standard errors were used to identify the association between the surgical invasiveness and safety outcomes, controlling for patient age, sex and Elixhauser (v3.7) comorbidity. RESULTS The adjusted mean adverse event rates were 2.0% for repeat surgery within 1 year, 1.3% for 90-day wound problems, and 4.2% for 90-day readmission. Surgical invasiveness was associated with wound problems (OR 1.10, p CONCLUSIONS Greater use of complex spine operations in treating spondylolisthesis might reflect surgeons’ intention to provide additional stability, even in cases of mild spondylolisthesis. However, we found that greater surgical invasiveness is associated with increased risk for wound problems and readmissions, even after controlling for patient characteristics and comorbidity. Therefore, in planning surgical interventions, surgeons must engage patients in shared decision making, balancing benefits of more complex procedures with these associated increased risks for harm. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial)

IntroductionPatients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis are frequently treated with nerve root decompression, in addition to pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion. Minimally invasive approaches are gaining attention in recent years, although...

Effects of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and traditional open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open TLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: A total of 41 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis accepted surgical treatment in Department of Spinal Surgery of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital From July 2015 to April 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 cases accepted robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF and 25 accepted traditional open TLIF. The operation time, X-ray radiation exposure time, perioperative bleeding, drainage volume, time of hospitalization, time for pain relief, time for ambulatory recovery, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and complications were compared. T test and χ(2) were used to analyze data. Results: There were no significant difference in gender, age, numbers, degrees, pre-operative VAS and ODI in spondylolisthesis (all P>0.05). Compared with traditional open TLIF group, the robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group had less perioperative bleeding ((187.5±18.4) ml vs. (332.1±23.5) ml), less drainage volume ((103.1±15.6) ml vs. (261.3±19.8) ml), shorter hospitalization ((7.8±1.9) days vs. (10.0±1.6) days), shorter time for pain relief ((2.8±1.0) days vs. (5.2±1.1) days), shorter time for ambulatory recovery ((1.7±0.9) days vs. (2.9±1.3) days) and less VAS of the third day postoperatively (2.2±0.9 vs. 4.2±2.4) (t=2.762-16.738, all P<0.05), but need more operation time ((151.3±12.3) minutes vs. (102.2±7.1) minutes) and more X-ray radiation exposure ((26.1±3.3) seconds vs. (5.5±2.1) seconds) (t=6.125, 15.168, both P<0.01). In both groups ODI was significantly lower in final follow-up than that of the pre-operation (t=12.215, 14.036, P<0.01). Intervertebral disc height of the final follow-up in both groups were significantly larger than that of the preoperation (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (11.8 ± 2.8) mm vs. (7.5 ± 1.9) mm, traditional open TLIF group: (12.7 ± 2.5) mm vs. (7.9±2.0) mm), and so was the lumbar lordosis angle (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (48.7±9.2)°vs. (39.6±7.9)°, traditional open TLIF group: (50.1±10.8)°vs. (41.4±8.8)°), the lordosis angle of the slippage segment (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (18.7±5.6)°vs. (10.9±3.8)°, traditional open TLIF group: (17.6±6.1)°vs.(8.7±3.2)°) (t=4.128-16.738, all P<0.01). Slippage rate of the final follow-up in both groups were significantly smaller than those of the pre-operation (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (5.3±2.3) % vs. (27.8±7.2) %, traditional open TLIF group: (6.6±2.8) % vs. (29.1±9.5) %) (t=11.410, 18.504, both P<0.01). There was no difference of the upper data between two groups (t=0.106-1.227, P>0.05). The results of the post-operative CT showed that the pedicle screws in the robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group were more precisely placed than traditional open TLIF group (χ(2)=4.247, P=0.039). The mean follow-up time was 8 months (ranging from 3 to 12 months). There were no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups (χ(2)=0.366, P=0.545). Conclusions: In the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, Robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF can lead to less perioperative bleeding, less post-operative pain, and quicker recovery than traditional open TLIF surgery, but it needs more operation time and radiation exposure.

Study on feasibility of enhanced recovery after surgery combined with mobile microendoscopic discectomy-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Objective: To explore the feasibility of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) combined with mobile microendoscopic discectomy-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MMED-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis and its influence on postoperative rehabilitation. Methods: From October 1 2014 to July 1 2016 , a cohort of 52 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who received the program of ERAS-MMED-TLIF were retrospectively reviewed in Department of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Tianjin Hospital.The primary outcomes include the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, VAS score (low back pain and leg pain) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at different follow-up time and complication.The height of intervertebral space and fusion rate were also recorded as radiographic indicators. Results: All cases had an average follow-up of 12 months. The mean operative time was (115±30) min with a mean blood loss of (100±35) ml.Compared with preoperative condition, VAS score of low back pain (6.3±3.3 vs 3.5±2.3, P<0.05), VAS score of leg pain (7.1 ± 4.2 vs 3.1 ± 2.6, P<0.05) and the ODI disability index score (43.5±9.6 vs 20.9±7.3, P<0.05) at the postoperative 24 h were decreased and the difference was statistically significant.The mean hospitalized time were (4.9±1.3) days with mean postoperative hospital stay (2.1±1.2) days.Fusion rate was 92.31% (48/52) at the last follow-up time. Conclusion: ERAS combined with MMED-TLIF is feasible in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, which can significantly reduce intraoperative bleeding, shorten the total length of stay and postoperative hospital stay, improve postoperative pain and promote rapid rehabilitation of patients after operation without increasing the operation time and influencing the long-term effect, it can be applied in clinical practice.

Efficacy of Coflex in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis

Objective: To study the clinical results of Coflex and lumbar posterior decompression and fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis at L(4-5). Methods: Thirty-eight patients with Grade Ⅰ degenerative spondylolisthesis, from January 2008 to December 2011 in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University were reviewed, and patients were divided into two groups by randomness. Group A was treated with Coflex and group B with pedicle instrumentation and interbody fusion. Fifteen patients were included in group A, and 23 patients were included in group B. In group A, the average age was (56.3±9.1) years. In group B, the average age was (58.2±11.2) years. The clinical results were evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Slip distance (SD) was measured before and after surgery, and the changes of intervertebral angle at index level and adjacent level were also recorded. Results: The follow-up period was 36 to 68 months, with the average of (39±14) months in the both groups. The operation time and bleeding volume of patients in group A were significantly less than that of group B (P<0.05). In both groups, the difference of ODI and VAS before operation and postoperative follow-up were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between lumbar intervertebral angle and the sliding distance in group A at all time points. In the group B, there was a significant increase in the intervertebral angle and the sliding distance at L(3-4) and L(5)-S(1 )level after surgery, the difference at upper and below adjacent segment before and after surgery were statistically significant. Conclusions: Coflex interspinous dynamic stabilization system has same excellent clinical results as pedicle screw instrumentation and fusion surgery for the treatment of L(4-5) degenerative spondylolisthesis; no significant progression of spondylolisthesis been observed during more than 3 years follow-up, and no obvious adjacent segment degeneration has been found.

A Novel Nonpedicular Screw-Based Fixation in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Objective. The authors present the clinical results obtained in patients who underwent interspinous fusion device (IFD) implantation following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The purpose of this study is investigating the feasibility of IFD with PLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods. Between September 2013 and November 2014, 39 patients underwent PLIF and subsequent IFD (Romeo®2 PAD, Spineart, Geneva, Switzerland) implantation. Medical records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed to collect relevant data such as blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Radiographs and clinical outcome were evaluated 6 weeks and 12 months after surgery. Results. All 39 patients were followed up for more than one year. There were no major complications such as dura tear, nerve injuries, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, or deep infection. Both interbody and interspinous fusion could be observed on radiographs one year after surgery. However, there were 5 patients having early retropulsion of interbody fusion devices. Conclusion. The interspinous fusion device appears to achieve posterior fixation and facilitate lumbar fusion in selected patients. However, further study is mandatory for proposing a novel anatomic and radiological scoring system to identify patients suitable for this treatment modality and prevent postoperative complications.