Objective To compare the therapeutic effect of conventional discectomy, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) on the recurrent lumbar disc protrusion (RLDP). Methods From January 2000 to January 2008, 65 patients with RLDP underwent different surgical procedures, namely conventional discectomy (group A, 25 cases), PLIF (group B, 22 cases), and TLIF (group C, 18 cases). There were 44 males and 21 females aged 26-65 years old (average 41 years old). All the patients were single-level protrusion, including 33 cases at the L4, 5 level and 32 cases at the L5, S1 level. The primary procedure included laminectomy discectomy in 39 patients, unilateral hemilaminectomy discectomy in 15 patients, and bilateral laminectomy and total laminectomy discectomy in 11patients. The recurrent time to the primary operation was 13-110 months (average 64 months). The location of recurrent disc protrusion was at the ipsilateral side in 47 cases and the contralateral side in 18 cases. No significant differences among three groups were evident in terms of basel ine data (P gt; 0.05). Results The incision all healed by first intention. The incidence of perioperative compl ication in group A (24.0%) and group B (22.3%) was significantly higher than that of group C (5.6%) (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P gt; 0.05). The operation time and bleed loss during operation of group B were obviously higher than that of group A and group C (P lt; 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group C (P gt; 0.05). There were no significant differences among three groups in terms of the length of hospital ization (P gt; 0.05). Six-one patients were followed up for 12-36 months (average 20 months). At 1 week after operation, the satisfied rate of patients was 84.0% in group A, 81.8% in group B, and 88.9% in group C (P gt; 0.05). All the patients in group B and group C achieved fusion uneventfully. There were no significant differences among three groups in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) when compared the preoperative value with the final follow-up value (P gt; 0.05). There was significant difference within group A, B, and C in terms of VAS and ODI when compared the preoperative value with the final follow-up value (P lt; 0.05), but there were no significant differences among three groups in the improvement rate (P gt; 0.05). The intervertebral space grading method proposed by Roberts et al. was adopted to evaluate the intervertebral space height (ISH), the preoperative value was 2.04 ± 0.93 in group A, 2.18 ± 0.91 in group B, and 2.11 ± 0.90 in group C, andat the final follow-up, the value was 2.64 ± 0.58 in group A, 1.05 ± 0.59 in group B, and 1.06 ± 0.42 in group C. There were significant differences among three groups in the ISH when compared the properative value with the final follow-up value (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion All of the three surgical procedures are effective for RLDP, but conventional discectomy and PLIF have more compl ications than TLIF. Conventional discectomy may result in the further narrow of the intervertebral space and the occurrence of segment instabil ity, whereas TLIF is safer, more effective, and one of the ideal methods to treat RLDP.
Objective To analyze the effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Methods Between October 2003 and December 2007, 36 patients with FBSS were treated with TLIF. There were 19 males and 17 females with an average age of 52.6 years (range, 46-68 years) and an average disease duration of 1.6 years (range, 3 months-15 years). Of 36 patients, reoperation was performed in 25, 10 received 3 operations,and 1 had 5 operations. A total of 50 segments were involved in fusion, including L4, 5 in 12 cases, L5, S1 in 10 cases, L3, 4 and L4, 5 double segments in 8 cases, and L4, 5 and L5, S1 double segments in 6 cases. According to X-ray films, CT, and MRI examination, 12 patients were diagnosed as having lumbar instabil ity secondary to total laminectomy, 18 as having recurrence of lumbar disc protrusion, and 6 as having recurrence of lumbar spondylol isthesis. Results Dural rupture occurred in 1 case and was repaired by suturing without cerebrospinal fluid leakage was observed; 1 had deep incision infection of Staphylococcus; and 1 had transient single irritation sign because of hematoma formation and was cured after symptomatic treatment. The other incisions healed by first intention. No patients had permanent nerve injury or deterioration. Thirty-three cases were followed up 18-72 months (mean, 35.2 months). At 12 months, all the operated segments reached interbody fusion, and no breakage of screw or Cage dislocation occurred. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores showed significant difference (t=2.45, P=0.01) between before operation (14.2 ± 4.1) and 18 months after operation (23.9 ± 2.6). The rate of cl inical improvement was 90.9% (23 cases of excellent, 7 cases of good, 3 cases of acceptable). Conclusion The TLIF simpl ifies the manipulation of lumbar revision surgery and decreases the operation risk and the operative compl ications for the treatment of FBSS.
Objective To compare the difference of traumatic related index in serum and its significance between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF. Methods Sixty patients were enrolled by the entry criteria between May and November 2012, and were divided into MIS-TLIF group (n=30) and open TLIF group (n=30). There was no significant difference in gender, age, type of lesions, disease segment, and disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time were recorded, and the pain severity of incision was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS). The serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine kinase (CK) were measured at preoperation and at 24 hours postoperatively. The levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) in serum were measured at preoperation and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after operation. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospitalization time of MIS-TLIF group were significantly smaller than those of open TLIF group (P lt; 0.05), and the VAS score for incision pain in MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open TLIF group at 1, 2, and 3 days after operation (P lt; 0.05). The levels of CRP, CK, IL-6, and IL-10 in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in open TLIF group at 24 hours after operation (P lt; 0.05), but there was no significant difference between 2 groups before operation (P gt; 0.05). No significant difference was found in TNF-α level between 2 groups at pre- and post-operation (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Compared with the open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF may significantly reduce tissue injury and systemic inflammatory reactions during the early postoperative period.
ObjectiveTo analyze the restoration of intervertebral height and lordosis of fusion segment after open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Open-TLIF) and minimally invasive-TLIF (MIS-TLIF).MethodsBetween January 2013 and February 2016, patients who treated with TLIF due to lumbar degenerative diseases and met the selection criteria were selected as the study objects. Among them, 41 patients were treated with open-TLIF (Open-TLIF group), 34 patients were treated with MIS-TLIF (MIS-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, disease type, disease duration, pathological segment, and other general data. The intraoperative bleeding volume, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of waist and leg, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded before and after operation. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (ADH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of fusion segment were measured by X-ray film before and at 6 months after operation. The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between pre- and post-operation were calculated.ResultsThe intraoperative bleeding volume and hospital stay in Open-TLIF group were significantly higher than those in MIS-TLIF group (t=14.619, P=0.000; t=10.021, P=0.000). All incisions healed by first intention without early complications. All patients were followed up 6-24 months (mean, 12.6 months) in Open-TLIF group and 6-24 months (mean, 11.5 months) in MIS-TLIF group. The preoperative VAS scores of waist and leg and ODI of the two groups significantly improved (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI between the two groups before operation and at 2 weeks and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed the good intervertebral fusion. There was no significant difference in ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups were not significant (P>0.05). The ADH, PDH, and SL after operation significantly increased in the two groups (P<0.05).ConclusionOpen-TLIF and MIS-TLIF show similar effectiveness and radiological change in the treatment of single lumbar degenerative diseases and the improved intervertebral height and lordosis, but MIS-TLIF can significantly reduce hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss.
Objective To compare the short-term effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus open-TLIF in treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between February 2010 and February 2011, 147 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases underwent open-TLIF in 104 cases (open-TLIF group) and MIS-TLIF in 43 cases (MIS-TLIF group), and the clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease type, lesion level, disease duration, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), and preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative radiological exposure time, intra- and post-operative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications were compared between 2 groups. The VAS score and ODI were observed during follow-up. The imaging examination was done to observe the bone graft fusion and the locations of internal fixator and Cage. Results There was no significant difference in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.402, P=0.688); MIS-TLIF group had a decreased intra- and post-operative blood loss, shortened postoperative hospitalization time, and increased intraoperative radiological exposure time, showing significant differences when compared with open-TLIF group (P lt; 0.05). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage (2 cases) and superficial infection of incision (2 cases) occurred after operation in open-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 3.8% (4/104); dorsal root ganglion stimulation symptom (3 cases) occurred in MIS-TLIF group, with a complication incidence of 7.0% (3/43); there was no significant difference in the complication incidence between 2 groups (χ2=0.657, P=0.417). The patients were followed up 18-26 months (mean, 21 months) in MIS-TLIF group, and 18-28 months (mean, 23 months) in open-TLIF group. The VAS scores and ODI of 2 groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score between 2 groups at discharge and 3 months after operation (P gt; 0.05); VAS score of MIS-TLIF group was significantly lower than that of open-TLIF group at last follow-up (t= — 2.022, P=0.047). At 3 months and last follow-up, no significant difference was found in the ODI between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The imaging examination showed good positions of Cage and internal fixator, and bone graft fusion in 2 groups. Conclusion The short-term effectiveness of MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases was similar. MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less invasion and quick recovery, but the long-term effectiveness needs more observation.
【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effectiveness of surgical treatment for discogenic low back pain (DLBP) by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF). Methods Between March 2006 and July 2009, 57 patients with single-level DLBP were treated by minimally invasive TLIF combined with UPSF, including 27 males and 30 females with an average age of 45.6 years (range, 38-61 years) and a disease duration of 3.8 years (range, 9 months to 11 years). The involved segments included L2，3 in 2 cases, L3，4 in 5 cases, L4，5 in 29 cases, and L5, S1 in 21 cases. The operative time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, hospitalization times, fusion rate, and complications were observed. The effectiveness were evaluated through Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue score (VAS), and the operative outcomes were compared in different groups classified according to various pressures of the contrast medium and sensitivities to discoblock after inducing consistent pain. Results The operation time, incision length, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and hospitalization times were (84.6 ± 37.4) minutes, (3.4 ± 0.6) cm, (132.5 ± 23.2) mL, (58.7 ± 21.4) mL, and (6.5 ± 0.8) days, respectively. All patients were followed up 2 years and 2 months to 5 years and 4 months (mean, 3.2 years). At last follow-up, ODI and VAS scores were significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P lt; 0.05). The effectiveness according to ODI were excellent in 27 cases, good in 22 cases, fair in 6 cases, and poor in 2 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 86.0%. All patients acquired b interbody fusion. At last follow-up according to ODI and VAS scores, better results were found in patients of low-pressure sensitive group and high-sensitive discoblock group (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF combined with UPSF is reliable for DLBP with minimal surgical trauma, less paravertebral tissue injury, and fewer complications, but the indications for operation must be strictly followed. Patients being sensitive to low-pressure or high-sensitive to discoblock can achieve better surgical results.
Objective To discuss the key issues in the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative disc disease and thetherapeutic effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion on it. Methods From September 2004 to August 2006, 15 cases of degenerative disc disease were treated by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, including 8 males and 7 females with the age of 33-46 years. All cases were single-level degenerative disc diseases, including 1 case of L3,4, 8 cases of L4,5 and 6 cases of L5, S1. The course of the disease was 2 -10 years. Preoperatively, the score of visual analogue scale (VAS) was 8.9 ± 1.8 and the score of Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) was 51.4 ± 8.3. All patients had received normal conventional treatment for at least 3 months and had no therapeutic effect before operation. Results The operation time was 120-180 minutes (150 minutes on average) and the intra-operative blood loss was 200-500 mL (360 mL on average). There was no severe compl ication, except that the muscle tone of anterior tibia in one case decreased to the third level, which recovered to the 5- level 3 months after operation. A total of 15 cases were followed up for 12-24 months (18 months on average). All patients got interbody bony fusion 12 months after operation with the fusion rate of 100%. Postoperatively, the score of VAS was 2.8 ± 1.6 and the score of ODI was 19.1 ± 3.2, indicating there were significant difference in comparison with postoperative ones (P lt; 0.05). The improvement rates of postoperative VAS and ODI were 61.8% ± 7.3% and 64.3% ± 5.5%, respectively. For the therapeutic effect, 6 cases were regardedas excellent, 8 good, 1 fair, and the choiceness rate was 93.3%. All patients resumed their jobs and normal l ives. Conclusion Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is effective for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease, but the indications for operation must be strictly defined.
ObjectiveTo compare the biomechanical differences between the kidney-shaped nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) Cage and the bullet-shaped n-HA/PA66 Cage. MethodsL2-L5 spinal specimens were selected from 10 adult male pigs. L2, L3 and L4, L5 served as a motor unit respectively, 20 motor units altogether. They were divided into 4 groups (n=5):no treatment was given as control group (group A); nucleus pulposus resection was performed (group B); bullet-shaped Cage (group C), and kidney-shaped Cage (group D) were used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) through left intervertebral foramen and supplemented by posterior pedicle screw fixation. The intervertebral height (IH) and the position of Cages were observed on the X-ray films. The range of motion (ROM) was measured. ResultsThere was no significant difference in the preoperative IH among 4 groups (F=0.166, P=0.917). No significant change was found in IH between at pre- and post-operation in group B (P>0.05); it increased after operation in groups C and D, but difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the postoperative IH among groups B, C, and D (P>0.05). The distance from Cage to the left margin was (3.06±0.51) mm in group C (close to the left) and (5.68±0.69) mm in group D (close to the middle), showing significant difference (t=6.787, P=0.000). The ROM in all directions were significantly lower in groups C and D than in groups A and B (P<0.05), and in group A than in group B (P<0.05). The right bending and compression ROM of group C were significantly higher than those of group D (P<0.05), but no statistically significant difference was found in the other direction ROM (P>0.05). ConclusionThe bullet-shaped and kidney-shaped Cages have similar results in restoring IH and maintaining the stability of the spine assisted by internal fixation. Kidney-shaped Cage is more stable than bullet-shaped Cage in the axial compression and the bending load opposite implant, it can be placed in the middle and back of the vertebral body more ideally.
Objective To review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.
ObjectiveTo investigate the advantage and short- and medium-term effectivenesses of paramedian incision minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (mini-TLIF) by comparing with open TLIF. MethodsA retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 54 patients with single segmental lumbar degenerative disease who accorded with the inclusion criteria between January 2012 and March 2014. Open TLIF was performed in 26 patients (open group), mini-TLIF in 28 cases (minimally invasive group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, etiology, and affected segments between 2 groups (P>0.05). The indexes of surgical trauma, systemic inflammatory response, clinical outcome, and interbody fusion rate were compared between 2 groups. ResultsDural rupture occurred in 1 case of open group, L5 nerve root injury in 1 case of minimally invasive group. All patients obtained primary healing of incision. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage of minimally invasive group were significantly lower than those of open group (P<0.05). C-reactive protein, leucocyte count, and creatine kinase-MM (CK-MM) of open group were significantly higher than those of minimally invasive group at 24 hours after operation (P<0.05). At 7 days after operation, the CK-MM of minimally invasive group was significantly lower than that of open group (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found in C-reactive protein and leucocyte count between 2 groups (P>0.05). The follow-up time was 1.2-3.1 years in open group and 1.4-2.9 years in minimally invasive group. At 1 year after operation, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly improved in 2 groups (P<0.05). Minimally invasive group was better than open group in ODI and VAS score of back pain (P<0.05), but VAS score of leg pain showed no significant difference (P>0.05). According to the Suk interbody fusion standard, solid fusion was obtained in 18 cases, probable fusion in 4 cases, and nonunion in 4 cases, and the fusion rate was 84.61% in open group; solid fusion was obtained in 21 cases, probable fusion in 3 cases, and nonunion in 4 cases, and the fusion rate was 85.71% in minimally invasive group; and the interbody fusion rates showed no significant difference between 2 groups (χ2=0.072, P=0.821). ConclusionCompared with open TLIF, paramedian incision mini-TLIF has advantages of minimal surgical trauma and little blood loss for single-level lumbar degenerative disease. The short- and medium-term effectivenesses are satisfactory.