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.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness between anterior cervical Zero-profile interbody fusion device (Zero-P) and anterior cervical plate device (plate cage benezech, PCB) for cervical disease. MethodsBetween February 2011 and January 2013, 98 patients with cervical spondylosis who accorded with the inclusion criteria were treated with Zero-P in 49 cases (group A) and with PCB in 49 cases (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease type, disease duration, and disease segments between 2 groups (P>0.05). The Cobb angle, short-form 36 health survey scale (SF-36 scale), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, postoperative dysphagia cases, neck disability index (NDI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were compared between 2 groups. ResultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss of group A were significantly less than those of group B (t=4.089, P=0.000;t=3.587, P=0.001). The patients were followed up 3-36 months (mean, 18.5 months). No loosening or breaking of internal fixation and bone absorption or collapse occurred in the other patients except 2 patients who suffered from screw loosening at 3 months after operation. Within 6 months after operation, dysphagia occurred in 8 cases (16.33%) of group A and in 13 cases (26.53%) of group B, showing significant difference (χ2=10.616, P=0.001). At last follow-up, JOA score, VAS score, NDI, SF-36 scale, and Cobb angle were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P<0.05);the other indexes of group A were significantly better than those of group B (P<0.05) except SF-36 scale and Cobb angle (P>0.05). The excellent and good rate of JOA score was 81.63% in group A and 71.43% in group B, showing significant difference (χ2=4.346, P=0.037). ConclusionZero-P and PCB can get good results in treatment of cervical disease, but the Zero-P is better than PCB in reducing postoperative dysphagia because less wounds and strong stability.
Objective To study the clinical application ofheterogenous bone graft combined with auto-marrow. Methods Deproteinated and degreased heterogenouscancellous bone combined with auto-marrow was used in 21 cases of anterior cervical interbody fusion. Among them, 2 cases were treated by bone graft only, and the other 19 cases were further treated by anterior plate fixation. Results The follow-up time was 12-36 months with an average of 21 months. After operation, posteroanterior and lateral radiograph of all the cases revealed that the reduction and the position of the grafting bone were good without inflammation or other complications. After 6 months of operation, the radiograph of 2 cases of cervical disk herniation, which were treated by bone graft only, showed the bones lost their height and the curve of the cervical spine returned to the state of preoperation. For the other cases, the grafting bonesremained their original figure without dislocation of the bone or fracture of the plate or the screw. The nervous function recovered variously. Before operation, 10 cases were ranked as grade A,7 cases grade C, 4 cases grade D according to Frankel classification. After operation, in grade A cases, 5 cases did not recover, 3 cases recovered to grade B, 2 cases to grade C; in grade C cases, 5 to grade D, 2 to grade E; all ofgrade D 4 cases to grade E. Conclusion Heterogenous bone combined with auto-marrow can be used as grafting material in the anterior cervical interbodyfusion, but its mechanical rigidity need to be improved or the fusion shouldbe aided with rigid internal fixation.
Objective To summarize the basic research and the cl inical appl ication of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage. Methods Recent l iterature concerning biodegradable interbody fusion Cage at home and abroad was extensively reviewed, and current developments of the basic research and the cl inical appl ication of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage were investigated. Results Basic research showes that the stiffness of biodegradable interbody fusion Cage is lower than that of metall ic Cage, so it can enhance interbody fusion. As interbody fusion proceeded, biodegradable interbody fusion Cage degrades constantly, but the speed of degradation can not keep in parallel with that of fusion. In addition, the tissue response to degradation products is controversy. Cl inical appl ication showes that the biodegradable interbody fusion Cage can enhance interbody fusion and maintain disc space height. The short term results are good, however, the long term results need further observation. Conclusion Biodegradable interbody fusion Cage can effectively enhance interbody fusion.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of cortical bone trajectory screw (CBTS) and conventional pedicle screw for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single segment lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Between May 2013 and May 2016, a total of 97 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative disease were treated with PLIF. Fifty-one patients were fixed with CBTS in PLIF (trajectory screw group) and 46 with pedicle screw (pedicle screw group). There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, preoperative diagnosis, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, bed rest time, length of hospital stay, serum creatine kinase (CK) concentration, total amount of diclofenac sodium, perioperative complications, ODI, VAS score, and interbody fusion rate were recorded and compared between 2 groups. Results All patients were followed up 12 months. The patients in trajectory screw group had a significantly less operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and serum CK concentration when compared with the patients in pedicle screw group (P<0.05). Thirty-five patients (68.6%) in trajectory screw group and 46 patients (100%) in pedicle screw group were given diclofenac sodium within 48 hours after operation, showing significant difference between 2 groups (χ2=89.334, P=0.000). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between trajectory screw group and pedicle screw group (3.9% vs. 8.7%, P=0.418). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, ODI, and interbody fusion rate at 12 months after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). Conclusion For the single segment degenerative lumbar disease, the use of CBTS or conventional pedicle screw for PLIF can obtain satisfactory clinical function and interbody fusion rate. But the former has the advantages of less blood loss, less intraoperative muscle damage, less perioperative pain, shorter length of hospital stay and bed rest time.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. MethodsRetrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 26 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation, who were in line with the selection criteria and underwent MIS-TLIF in 14 patients (MIS-TLIF group) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in 12 patients (OTLIF group) between December 2007 and May 2012. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, level of disc herniation, side of disc herniation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and complications were compared between 2 groups. The clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores. The fusion rate was determined by using CT three-dimensional reconstruction and dynamic lumbar radiography at last follow-up. ResultsPrimary healing of incisions was obtained in both groups. No difference was found in operation time between 2 groups (t=0.858, P=0.399), but MIS-TLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume than OTLIF group (P<0.05). The average follow-up duration was 34.1 months with a range of 12-50 months. No complication of dural tear, infection, spinal nerve trauma, and implant failure occurred. The VAS scores of lower back pain and radicular pain and ODI scores at preoperation showed no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05). The VAS score of lower back pain and ODI score at 1 day after operation in MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the OTLIF group (P<0.05), but no difference was found in VAS scores of radicular pain between 2 groups (P>0.05). Difference in all scores was not significant at last follow-up between 2 groups (P>0.05). The fusion rate was 92.8% (13/14) in MIS-TLIF group, and was 100% (12/12) in OTLIF group at last follow-up. ConclusionMIS-TLIF is a safe and effective procedure for upper lumbar disc herniation as an alternative to other techniques.
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 and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive tubular TLIF (MT-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods A clinical data of 75 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, who met the selection criteria between August 2019 and August 2020, was retrospectively analyzed, including 35 patients in the UBE- TLIF group and 40 patients in the MT-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease type and duration, and surgical segment between the two groups (P>0.05), which was comparable. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin (Hb) before operation and at 1 day after operation, the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36 scale), intervertebral disc height (IDH), sagittal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL), and the intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with MT-TLIF group, UBE-TLIF group had significantly longer operation time but less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay (P<0.05). The Hb levels in both groups decreased at 1 day after operation, but there was no significant difference in the difference before and after operation between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up, and the follow-up time was (14.7±2.5) months in the UBE-TLIF group and (15.0±3.4) months in the MT-TLIF group, with no significant difference (t=0.406, P=0.686). In both groups, the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, SF-36 scale, and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between 1 month after operation and last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and SF-36 scale between the two groups before and after operation (P>0.05). At 1 month after operation, the ODI in the UBE-TLIF group was significantly better than that in the MT-TLIF group (P<0.05). At 1 month after operation, IDH, Cobb angle, and LL in both groups recovered when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and were maintained until last follow-up (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the IDH, Cobb angle, and LL between the two groups at each time point (P>0.05). Thirty-three cases (89.2%) in the UBE-TLIF group and 35 cases (87.5%) in the MT-TLIF group achieved fusion, and the difference was not significant (χ2=0.015, P=0.901). In the UBE-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear and 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma occurred, with an incidence of 5.7%. In the MT-TLIF group, 1 case of intraoperative dural tear, 1 case of postoperative epidural hematoma, and 1 case of superficial infection of the surgical incision occurred, with an incidence of 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (χ2=1.234, P=1.000). Conclusion Compared with MT-TLIF, UBE-TILF can achieve similar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, and has the advantages of smaller incision, less bleeding, and shorter length of hospital stay.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods A retrospective study was done on 25 cases of lumbar degenerative diseases treated with DLIF between May 2013 and May 2014. There were 15 males and 10 females with an average age of 61.4 years (range, 36-78 years), including 14 cases of lumbar disc herniation, 2 cases of degenerative lumbar scoliosis, 3 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and 6 cases of lumbar instability with spinal stenosis. The disease duration was 8 months to 20 years (mean, 5.7 years). The involved segments included L4, 5 in 10 cases, L3, 4 in 6 cases, L2, 3 in 2 cases, L2-4 in 2 cases, L3-5 in 3 cases, and L2-5 in 2 cases. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative hospitalization time, and complications were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) criteria were used to assess the effectiveness; X-ray film and CT were used to evaluate the bone fusion. Results The mean operation time was 105 minutes (range, 85-155 minutes), and mean intraoperative bleeding volume was 158 mL (range, 80-300 mL). The postoperative hospitalization time was 2-5 days (mean, 3.2 days). All incisions healed by first intension. There was no complication of wound infection, vascular injuries, or intraoperative visceral injuries. All cases were followed up 24.6 months on average (range, 18-30 months). Four cases had iliopsoas weakness, 5 cases had iliopsoas weakness and anterior thigh hypoesthesia, which disappeared within 6 months after operation. No retrograde ejaculation, Cage displacement, or loosening was found after operation. Full bony fusion was observed in 20 segments and partial bony fusion in 12 segments. The mean bony fusion time was 10.8 months (mean, 6-18 months). The height of intervertebral space was significantly increased to (11.98±1.20) mm at 2 days after operation and to (11.80±1.33) mm at last follow-up from preoperative (6.20±0.88) mm (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between at 2 days and last follow-up (P > 0.05). At last follow-up, VAS score was significantly decreased to 3.43±0.53 from preoperative 8.26±0.49 (t=26.275, P=0.000), and ODI was significantly decreased to 15.41%±3.91% from preoperative 40.80%±3.10% (t=22.902, P=0.000). Conclusion DLIF is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar degenerative diseases, which has the advantages of less tissue damage, less blood loss, and fast rehabilitation.
Objective To summarize the progress of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods The relevant literature about percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed, the approaches, technical characteristics, short- and long-term effectiveness, and complications of different surgical procedures were summarized. Results Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and reliable treatment. At present, the main surgical methods in clinical application can be roughly summarized as percutaneous endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PTLIF), percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF), percutaneous endoscopic oblique lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-OLIF), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion/Z’s percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF/ZELIF), and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF). Each surgical method has its own technical characteristics and development. Conclusion Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a kind of combined technology based on the individualization of the patient’s anatomical structure and the technical differentiation of the surgeon. Surgical experience, choosing adaptive indication and operative way reasonably are the key for the success.