Objective To compare the effectiveness between three-dimensional (3D) printed porous titanium alloy cage (3D Cage) and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage (PEEK Cage) in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods A total of 66 patients who were scheduled to undergo PLIF between January 2018 and June 2019 were selected as the research subjects, and were divided into the trial group (implantation of 3D Cage, n=33) and the control group (implantation of PEEK Cage, n=33) according to the random number table method. Among them, 1 case in the trial group did not complete the follow-up exclusion study, and finally 32 cases in the trial group and 33 cases in the control group were included in the statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in gender, age, etiology, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, JOA score, intervertebral height loss, and interbody fusion were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results The operations of two groups were completed successfully. There was 1 case of dural rupture complicated with cerebrospinal fluid leakage during operation in the trial group, and no complication occurred in the other patients of the two groups. All incisions healed by first intention. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 16.7 months). The JOA scores at 1 year after operation in both groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05) in the difference between pre- and post-operation and the improvement rate of JOA score at 1 year after operation. X-ray film reexamination showed that there was no screw loosening, screw rod fracture, Cage collapse, or immune rejection in the two groups during follow-up. At 3 months and 1 year after operation, the rate of intervertebral height loss was significantly lower in the trial group than in the control group (P<0.05). At 3 and 6 months after operation, the interbody fusion rating of trial group was significantly better in the trial group than in the control group (P<0.05); and at 1 year after operation, there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThere is no significant difference between 3D Cage and PEEK Cage in PLIF, in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative neurological recovery, and final intervertebral fusion. But the former can effectively reduce vertebral body subsidence and accelerate intervertebral fusion.
【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.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). MethodsA clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation (P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation (P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group (P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation (P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group (P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). ConclusionUnilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.
Objective To review the research progress of Modic changes and its influence on lumbar interbody fusion. Methods The domestic and foreign literature related to Modic changes and its influence on lumbar interbody fusion was extensively reviewed. The etiology of Modic changes was summarized, and the treatment measures of Modic changes on lumbar interbody fusion were discussed. Results The etiology of Modic changes is not clear, which may be related to mechanical factors, autoimmune factors, low toxic infection factors, and genetic factors. Modic changes may lead to fusion failure and cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion. Preoperative evaluation of endplate sclerosis, reduction of iatrogenic endplate injury, fine operating of intervertebral space, management of osteoporosis, and selection of appropriate cage can prevent or reduce fusion failure or cage subsidence. Conclusion Modic changes may lead to fusion failure and cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion, and active perioperative intervention of Modic changes is helpful to improve the clinical prognosis.
ObjectiveTo investigate the correlation between the effectiveness and the changes of spine-pelvic sagittal parameters for patients with spondylolisthesis before and after operation. MethodsA retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 32 patients with single segmental degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at L4 who accorded with the inclusion criteria between June 2011 and January 2014 (trial group). There were 13 males and 19 females, aged 51-67 years (mean, 59 years). According to Meyerding degree, there were 21 cases of degree I, 10 cases of degree Ⅱ, and 1 case of degree Ⅲ. All patients were treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery. Thirty-five healthy adults at the age of 46-67 years (mean, 57 years) were enrolled as normal controls (control group). The standing position lumbar lateral X-ray films (T12-S1, bilateral femoral head) were taken at pre- and post-operation to measure the pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), disc height (DH), and slip percentage (SP); the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded. Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the preoperative various spine-pelvic sagittal parameters and the VAS score and the ODI. After operation, Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between the changes of these parameters and the improve rates of VAS score and ODI. ResultsAll patients of trial group were followed up 15-22 months (mean, 18 months). At last follow-up, the VAS score, ODI, PT, SS, LL, SP, and DH were significantly improved when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), except for PI (t=-1.445, P=0.158). There was no significant difference in PT, SS, LL, and DH between trial and control groups at last follow-up (P>0.05); PI was slightly bigger than that of control group (t=8.531, P=0.043). Pearson correlation analysis showed that there was a correlation between spine-pelvic sagittal parameters of PI, PT, SS, and LL (P<0.05); preoperative parameters (except for LL and DH) had correlation with ODI and VAS scores (P<0.05). Postoperative parameters (except for PI) had correlation with the improve rates of ODI and VAS scores (P<0.05), especially for the changes of PT and the improvements of ODI and VAS scores. ConclusionThere is a correlation between the changes of spine-pelvic sagittal parameters at pre- and post-operation and effectiveness in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. The correlation between the changes of PT and the improvement rates of ODI and VAS scores is more marked. The good effectiveness is closely related with the improved PT.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of surgical treatment for single-level degenerative lumbar instabil ity (DLI) by comparing traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with minimally invasive TLIF. Methods Between March 2007 and May 2009，87 patients with single-level DLI were treated by traditional open TLIF (group A, n=45) and by minimally invasive TLIF (group B, n=42), respectively. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, segment level, combined diseases of lumbar spine, or the proportion of uni- and bilateral symptom between 2groups (P gt; 0.05). The indexes of surgical trauma，systemic inflammatory response, cl inical outcomes, and aravertebral muscle injury were compared between 2 groups. Results Operation was performed successfully in all patients. The patients were followed up 2.9 years on average in group A and 2.8 years on average in group B. The incision, blood loss, and postoperative drainage in group B were significantly less than those in group A (P lt; 0.05), but the operation time in group B was significantly longer than that in group A (P lt; 0.05). There were significant differences (P lt; 0.05) in C-reactive protein, leucocyte count, and creatine kinase MM between 2 groups at 24 hours postoperatively as well as in C-reactive protein at 6 days postoperatively; group B was superior to group A. At last follow-up, the Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) and visual analogue score (VAS) were significantly improved when compared with the preoperative scores in 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). There were significant differences in ODI and back pain VAS score (P lt; 0.05), but no significant difference in leg pain VAS score (P gt; 0.05) between 2 groups. At last follow-up, no low back pain occurred in 8 and 18 cases, mild in 25 and 18 cases, moderate in 9 and 6 cases, and severe in 3 and 0 cases in groups A and B, respectively, showing that low back pain was significantly l ighter in group B than in group A (Z= —2.574, P=0.010). At last follow-up, the atrophy ratio of multifidus muscle was 37% ± 13% in group A and was 15% ± 7% in group B, showing significant difference (t=12.674, P=0.000). The multifidus muscle atrophy was rated as grade I in 18 and 44 sides, as grade II in 42 and 32 sides, and as grade III in 30 and 8 sides in groups A and B, respectively, showing significant difference (Z= — 4.947, P=0.000). Conclusion Both traditional open TLIF and minimally invasive TLIF are the effective treatments for single-level DLI. Minimally invasive TLIF has less surgical trauma, sl ighter postoperative systemic inflammatory response, less paravertebral muscle injury, and lower incidence of postoperative back pain, but it has longer operation time.
ObjectiveTo review and evaluate the technical advantages and disadvantages and research progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. MethodsThe domestic and foreign related research literature on percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was extensively consulted. The advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness were summarized. And the development trend of this technology was prospected. ResultsCompared with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has less intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, better improvement of low back pain in the early stage after operation, and similar long-term effectiveness, fusion rate, and incidence of complication, but a longer learning curve. The operation time of biportal and large-channel uniportal endoscopic lumbar fusion is close to that of MIS-TLIF, but the operation time of small-channel uniportal endoscopic fusion is longer than that of MIS-TLIF. ConclusionPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has the advantages of less trauma and good effectiveness, but its learning curve is long, and indications should be strictly selected for this operation. In the future, with the continuous development and complementation of various endoscopic fusion technologies, this technology will gain better application prospects.
Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion（PLIF） using simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixationand autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolisthesis. Methods From March 2003 to March 2004，Twenty-seven patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis were divided in two groups. In group A, 15 patients were treated by PLIF using simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixation, including 4 males and 11 females, aging 53-68 years. Isthmic defectswere located at L4 in 9 cases, at L5 in 6 cases. Four patients were smokers.Thepreoperative mean disc space height was 5.4±2.3 mm, the mean percentage of slip was 36.8％±7.2%. In group B, 12 patients were treated by PLIF using autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixation, including 3 males and 9 females, aging 56 years. Isthmic defects were located at L4 in 8 cases, atL5 in 4 cases. Five patients were smokers. The preoperative mean disc space height was 5.7±2.5 mm, the mean percentage of slip was 37.8%±6.2%. Two groupswere compared in the amount of blood loss, duration of hospitalization, back pain, radiating pain, fusion rate, the intervertebral disc space height, the postoperative degree of slip and the fusion rate. Results All patientswere followed up for 24-38 months. The mean follow-up was 29(24-36) months in group A and26(24-38) months in group B. There were no statistically significant differences infollow-up period, age,sex, the location of isthmic defects, smoking, the preoperative disc space height and the percentage of slip between two groups (Pgt;0.05).There were no statistically significant differences in the amount of blood loss, the duration of hospitalization, the fusion time between two groups(Pgt;0.05). But there were statistically significant differences in the back pain score, the radiating pain score and the fusion rate between two groups(Plt;0.05).Thepo stoperative disc space height and the degree of slip of the last follow-up were5.8±2.2 mm and 25.6％±7.2% in group A, 6.2±2.5 mm and 24.1％±7.4 % ingroupB, showing statistically significant difference (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The PLIF using autogenous bone grafting and cage fusion with pedicle screw fixations ismore beneficial to improving the fusion rate and preventing longterm instabilities than simple cage alone fusion with pedicle screw fixation in adult spondylolisthesis.
Objective To review the progress in the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases. Methods The l iterature about the features, early cl inical outcomes, and cl inical appl ication of AxiaLIF for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases in recent years was reviewed. Results Almost 9 000 procedures performed globally in recent years, AxiaLIF has shown its safety and effectiveness because of high fusion rates, short hospital ization days, and less iatrogenic compl ications in comparison with standard fusion procedures. ConclusionPostoperative long-term outcomes, biomechanics stabil ity, and extended appl ication of AxiaLIF still need a further study,though it suggests an original minimally invasive treatment of lumbosacral degenerative diseases.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression with ultrasounic osteotome and traditional tool total laminectomy decompression PLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods The clinical data of 48 patients with single-stage degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between January 2017 and June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 27 patients were treated with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome (group A), and 21 patients were treated with total laminectomy and decompression PLIF with traditional tools (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, stenosis segment, degree of spinal canal stenosis, and disease duration between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The time of laminectomy decompression, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the occurrence of operation-related complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bridwell bone graft fusion standard was applied to evaluate bone graft fusion at last follow-up. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back pain at 3 days, 3 months, and 6 months after operation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) score was used to evaluate the patients’ lumbar and back function improvement before operation and at 6 months after operation. Results The time of laminectomy decompression in group A was significantly longer than that in group B, and the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05). There was no nerve root injury, dural tear, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and hematoma formation during and after operation in the two groups. All patients were followed up after operation, the follow-up time in group A was 6-18 months (mean, 10.5 months) and in group B was 6-20 months (mean, 9.3 months). There was no complication such as internal fixation fracture, loosening and nail pulling occurred during the follow-up period of the two groups. There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 3 days after operation (t=1.448, P=0.154); the VAS score of group A was significantly lower than that of group B at 3 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the two groups were significantly improved at 6 months after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in ODI scores between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, according to Bridwell criteria, there was no significant difference in bone graft fusion between the two groups (Z=–0.065, P=0.949); the fusion rates of groups A and B were 96.3% (26/27) and 95.2% (20/21) respectively, with no significant difference (χ2=0.001, P=0.979 ). Conclusion The treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral fenestration and bilateral decompression PLIF with ultrasonic osteotome can achieve similar effectiveness as traditional tool total laminectomy and decompression PLIF, reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage, and reduce lumbar back pain during short-term follow-up. It is a safe and effective operation method.