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.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) assisted with microscope in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween January 2011 and June 2012, 52 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis underwent MI-TLIF assisted with microscope. There were 29 males and 23 females with an average age of 46 years (range, 32-67 years). The median disease duration was 3.2 years (range, 3 months to 6 years). There were 38 cases of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis and 14 cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis; 12 cases had stenosis secondary to lumbar spondylolisthesis. The affected segments were L4, 5 (29 cases) and L5, S1 (23 cases). According to the Meyerding evaluating system, 24 cases were classified as degree I and 28 cases as degree Ⅱ. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI)were used for clinical assessment, and the clinical effects were also analyzed by Macnab criterion at last follow-up. The radiographic data were used to evaluate reduction of spondylolisthesis, including slipping degree, slipping angle, and intervertebral space height. The fusion rate was assessed by Suk criterion. ResultsThe operations were performed successfully in all patients. No dural tear or cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred during operation. The average operation time was 105 minutes; the average intraoperative blood loss was 225 mL; the average postoperative drainage volume was 75 mL; and the average hospitalization days were 5.5 days. Superficial infection of incision occurred in 1 case and was cured after change dressing, and primary healing of incision was obtained in the others. All patients were followed up 12-26 months (mean, 18 months). No loosening, breakage, and displacement of pedicle screw and no Cage dislocation occurred by X-ray films after operation. The lumbar spondylolisthesis all got good correction. The three-dimensional CT showed continuous bone trabecula between centrums. The VAS score, ODI, and the slipping degree, slipping angle, and intervertebral space height were significantly improved at last follow-up when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). According to Macnab criterion at last follow-up, the results were excellent in 20 cases, good in 29 cases, and fair in 3 cases; the excellent and good rate was 94.2%. According to Suk criterion for fusion, 49 cases obtained complete fusion and 3 cases got possible fusion. ConclusionAs long as indications are seized, MI-TLIF assisted with microscope is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis (Meyerding dergee I or Ⅱ), and it has the advantage of less injury, less blood loss, less complications, and definite short-term effectiveness.
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.
ObjectiveTo explore the effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. MethodsBetween February 2008 and December 2013, 17 patients with double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion. There were 12 males and 5 females, with an age ranged 48-69 years (mean, 55.4 years). The disease duration ranged from 11 months to 17 years (median, 22 months). According to the Meyerding classification, 30 vertebrea were rated as degree I, 3 as degree Ⅱ, and 1 as degree Ⅲ. L4, 5 was involved in 14 cases and L3, 4 in 3 cases. The preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score was 8.6±3.2. ResultsCerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases because of intraoperative dural tear; primary healing of incision was obtained, with no operation related complication in the other patients. The patients were followed up 1-6 years (mean, 3.4 years). At last follow-up, VAS score was decreased significantly to 1.1±0.4, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative score (t=7.652, P=0.008). X-ray films showed that slippage vertebral body obtained different degree of reduction, with a complete reduction rate of 85% (29/34) at 1 week after operation. All patients achieved bony union at 6-12 months (mean, 7.4 months). According to the Lenke classification, 13 cases were rated as grade A and 4 cases as grade B. No internal fixation loosening and fracture were observed during the follow-up. Intervertebral disc height was maintained, no loss of spondylolisthesis reduction was found. ConclusionIt can obtain satisfactory clinical result to use spinal canal decompression by posterior approach, and screw fixation for posterior fusion in treatment of double-segmental bilateral isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. The key points to successful operation include accurate insertion of screw, effective decompression, distraction before reduction, rational use of pulling screws, and interbody fusion.
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 compare the short-term effectiveness between dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed, from 14 patients undergoing Dynesys and 18 patients undergoing PLIF to treat lumbar degenerative disease between February 2009 and March 2011. No significant difference in gender, age, duration of disease, and lesion segments was found between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and radiographic results were compared between 2 groups at preoperation and last follow-up. Results Thirty-one cases were followed up 12-21 months (mean, 17 months). No internal fixation loosening, broken screws, and broken rods was found during follow-up. The mean interbody fusion time was 15 months (range, 13-19 months) in PLIF group. The VAS score and ODI were significantly improved in 2 groups at last follow-up when compared with the preoperative ones (P lt; 0.05); but there was no signficant difference between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Imaging assessment: the range of motion (ROM) of operated segment in PLIF group was (0.1 ± 0.4)° at last follow-up, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative ROM (7.8 ± 0.6)° (t=28.500, P=0.004); the ROM in Dynesys group (5.0 ± 1.5)° decreased, but showing no significant difference when compared with preoperative ROM (7.5 ± 0.8)° (t=0.480, P=0.113); and significant difference was found between 2 groups (t=5.260, P=0.008) at last follow-up. The ROM of adjacent segment in Dynesys group at last follow-up (7.2 ± 0.7)° decreased when compared with preoperative ROM (7.3 ± 1.8)°, but showing no significant difference (t=0.510, P=0.108); however, ROM of adjacent segment in PLIF group (8.7 ± 0.4)° increased significantly when compared with preoperative ROM (7.0 ± 1.6)°, showing signifcant difference (t=3.440, P=0.042); and there was significant difference between 2 groups (t= — 2.100, P=0.047) at last follow-up. Conclusion Dynesys and PLIF have equivalent short-term effectivness in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. However, the Dynesys could retain ROM of operated segment without increased ROM of the adjacent segment, which will promote the disc recovery of operated segment and prevent degeneration of adjacent segment.
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.