Search

Case: A 61-year-old woman with lower back and radicular leg pain underwent minimally invasive spinal fusion at L5-S1. By postoperative day 6, she exhibited erythema, wound dehiscence, and necrotic changes. Although a necrotizing infection was initially suspected, multiple debridements and antibiotic therapy failed to improve her condition. The patient was eventually diagnosed with pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) and was managed with immunosuppressants and extended wound care. Conclusion: PG is a rare dermatosis that is often misdiagnosed, leading to inappropriate treatment, debridements, and additional complications. Prompt identification and multidisciplinary collaboration are key to preventing unnecessary interventions and achieving the best outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Full-endoscopic (FE) lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is now a widely used type of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Although FE-LIF includes LIF with foraminoplasty via a Kambin's triangle approach (FE-KLIF) and LIF with foraminotomy via an interlaminar approach, these techniques are rarely discussed separately. This review evaluates the outcomes and complications of FE-KLIF reported in the literature. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of FE-KLIF. Of 464 publications assessed, 11 met our inclusion criteria. Although the most frequently treated level was L4/5, L5/S1 was also treated. FE-KLIF was performed under local anesthesia and sedation or under epidural anesthesia without general anesthesia. Visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores were improved postoperatively in all uncontrolled studies; however, there was no significant difference in these scores in studies that compared FE-KLIF with posterior LIF (PLIF) or MIS-transforaminal LIF (TLIF). There was also no significant difference in the fusion rate between FE-KLIF and PLIF or MIS-TLIF. In terms of complications, although there were no reports of hematoma, dural tear and surgical site infection were reported in 1 paper each, with transient nerve disorders reported in 5 studies (frequency, 1.8%–23.5%). This review indicates that FE-KLIF is a feasible and viable surgical option for lumbar degenerative disease. However, the amount and level of evidence is low for the studies included in this review, and the data on long-term outcomes remain limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design. Retrospective cohort. Objective. To compare navigation and robotics in terms of clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Summary of Background Data. Although robotics has been shown to have advantages like reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation, none of the studies has compared these two modalities in terms of clinical outcomes. Methods. Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF using robotics or navigation and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The robotics and navigation groups were compared for improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), minimal clinically important difference, patient-acceptable symptom state, response on the global rating change scale, and screw related complication and reoperation rates. Results. A total of 278 patients (143 robotics, 135 navigation) were included. There was no significant difference between the robotics and navigation groups in the baseline demographics, operative variables, and preoperative PROMs. Both groups showed significant improvement in PROMs at below six and six months or above, with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement between the two groups. Most patients achieved minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptom state and reported feeling better on the global rating change scale, with no significant difference in the proportions between the robotics and navigation groups. The screw-related complication and reoperation rates also showed no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions. Robotics did not seem to lead to significantly better clinical outcomes compared with navigation following MI-TLIF. Although the clinical outcomes may be similar, robotics offers the advantages of reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation. These advantages should be considered when determining the utility and cost-effectiveness of robotics in spine surgery. Larger multicenter prospective studies are required in the future to further investigate this subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Finite element analysis is frequently used for lumbar spine biomechanical analysis. The primary scope of this work is to illustrate, using finite element analysis, how the biomechanical behavior of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), along with a novel combination of the interspinous process device (IPD) and pedicle screws, improves lumbar spine stability. Methods: In this study, unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) were used. Four FE models were developed using ANSYS software, as follows: (1) Intact model; (2) TLIF with "U"-shaped Coflex-F IPD (UCF); (3) TLIF with Coflex-F and UPSF (UCF + UPSF); (4) TLIF with Coflex-F and BPSF (UCF + BPSF). The intact model was subjected to four pure moments (10 Nm), and the results were validated with previous literature data. The intact model results correlated well with the literature data, and the model was validated. Three surgical models were subjected to 7.5 Nm four pure moments, flexion (FL), extension (ET), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) and a 280N follower load. Results: The surgical model results were compared with the intact model. The comprehensive analysis results show the UCF + BPSF surgical model gave a good advantage on range of motion, cage stress, Coflex-F stress and endplate stress compared among the two models. Conclusion: This study proposes that the UCF + BPSF system helps to reduce the stress on the implant and adjacent endplates and gives very good stability to the lumbar spine under the various static loading conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of interbody cages as an adjunct to lumbar spinal fusion remains an important technique to enhance segmental stability, promote solid arthrodesis, maintain neuroforaminal decompression, and preserve/improve segmental lordosis. Appropriate segmental lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance is well-known to be critical for long-term patient outcomes. This study sought to evaluate the radiographic and clinical results of TLIF in patients using an articulating, expandable cage. Primary endpoint was clinical and radiographic outcomes, including complications, at 12 and 24 months. Methods: A total of 37 patients underwent open single-level or 2-level TLIF by a single surgeon using an expandable cage with concomitant bilateral pedicle screws and posterolateral arthrodesis. Clinical outcomes included ODI and VAS for back and legs. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic incidence and tilt, lumbar and segmental lordoses, and disc height at the operative level(s). All outcomes were collected at baseline, 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, and 24-months postop. Results: A total of 28 patients were available for analysis. Nine patients failed to follow-up at 24 months. Mean ODI scores showed significant improvement, from pre-to-postoperative at 24 months (55%; p

AbstractObjective The study aimed to compare the incidence of intraoperative endplate injury in patients who underwent Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and mini-open lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. The independent risk factors related to endplate injury in LLIF procedure were analyzed.Methods A total of 199 patients who underwent LLIF (n = 106) or TLIF (n = 93) surgery from June 2019 to September 2021 were reviewed. The endplate injury was assessed by postoperative sagittal CT scan. A binary logistic analysis model were used to identify independent risk factors related to LLIF endplate injury based on univariate analysis.Results There was an obvious difference in the occurrence of intraoperative endplate injury between LLIF (42/106, 39.6%) and TLIF group (26/93, 28%), although it did not reach the significant level. L1 CT value (OR = 0.985, 95% CI = 0.972–0.998), cage position (OR = 3.881, 95% CI = 1.398–10.771) and height variance (OR = 1.263, 95% CI = 1.013–1.575) were independent risk factors for endplate injury in LLIF procedure. According to the cage settlement patterns, there 5 types of A to E. The severity of the facet joint degeneration was positively related to the occurrence of endplate injury.Conclusions The incidence of intraoperative endplate injury is higher in LLIF than in TLIF procedures. Low bone quantity, cage posterior position and larger height variance are risk factors to induce endplate injury in LLIF surgery. The facet joint degeneration may be related to severe endplate injuries and even fractures.

Background context: Lumbar spine disc pathologies often necessitate removal of the intervertebral disc and implantation of a lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) device. Herein, the objective was to measure use condition forces while simulating intra-operative loading conditions of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures. Methods: In this work, we developed a transferable method to measure impact forces in a cadaveric intra-operative setting and designed a drop weight benchtop device equipped with force and displacement sensors to replicate cadaveric impact conditions, including number of strikes required for interbody device insertion, peak force, initial slope of the impact waveform, impact duration, and area under the force-time curve (impulse). Following cadaveric testing, a benchtop biomechanical study varying interbody device height, drop height, and drop weight was performed to evaluate the utility of the benchtop device to replicate impact loading conditions which occurred in the cadaveric model. Results: Several benchtop test groups replicated the cadaver group in number of strikes required for device insertion. The average cadaveric peak force, 13.03 kN, was replicated by three benchtop groups: 12 mm device height, 60 cm drop height, 0.75 lb drop weight; 12 mm device height, 60 cm drop height, 1.0 lb drop weight; and 14 mm device height, 60 cm drop height, 0.50 lb drop weight. The initial slope of the impact waveform was replicated best by 12 mm devices. Both the impact duration and impulse were lower in all benchtop groups than in cadaver testing. Conclusions: This work validated the outfitting of an impact force sensor onto an interbody device insertion instrument as a reproducible, quantifiable method for collecting impact loading data in a cadaveric model. This benchtop device and methodology will aid in testing interbody devices relative to anticipated use conditions, enhance interbody device designs, and accelerate surgical technique refinement.

Study design: This was a retrospective study. Objectives: Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a major complication associated with spinal fusion. The lumbar paraspinal muscle is an essential factor influencing the occurrence of ASD. This study aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative lumbar paraspinal muscle quality on L5-S1 adjacent lumbar foraminal stenosis degeneration (ASLFSD) after L4–5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods: A total of 113 patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis at L4–5 were treated with TLIF. Lumbar paraspinal muscle measurements were obtained preoperatively and bilaterally from axial T2-weighted MR images. The measurements included the total cross-sectional area of psoas (PS-tCSA), of erector spinae (ES-tCSA), and of multifidus (MF-tCSA); and fatty infiltration of psoas (PS-FI), of erector spinae (ES-FI), and of multifidus (MF-FI). Foraminal measurements, including posterior disc height (PDH), disc-to-facet distance (D–F), foraminal height (FH), and foraminal area (FA), were obtained bilaterally using a computed tomography system. The association between lumbar paraspinal muscle quality and changes in foraminal measurements was also studied. Results: We observed that the FH and FA significantly reduced at 1 year postoperatively at the mean follow-up period of 41.56 ± 8.38 months (range, 43–50 months), and PDH, D–F, FH, and FA all significantly reduced at final follow-up. These changes in foraminal measurements were significantly and negatively correlated with PS-FI, ES-FI, and MF-FI. Conclusion: During the clinical follow-up, we found that patients with a higher degree of paraspinal muscle FI were more likely to develop L5-S1 ASLFSD after L4–5 TLIF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in postoperative efficacy between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Materials and methods: Strictly based on the search strategy, we searched the published papers on OLIF and TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. A total of 607 related papers were retrieved, and 15 articles were finally included. The quality of the papers was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology, and the data were extracted and meta-analyzed using Review manager 5.4 software. Results: Through comparison, it was found that in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, the OLIF group had certain advantages over the TLIF group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segmental lordosis (FSL), and cage height, and the differences were statistically significant. The results were similar in terms of surgery time, complications, fusion rate, VAS for back pain (VAS-BP) and various sagittal imaging indicators, and there was no significant difference. Conclusions: OLIF and TLIF can relieve low back pain symptoms in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but OLIF has certain advantages in terms of ODI and VAS-LP. In addition, OLIF has the advantages of minor intraoperative trauma and quick postoperative recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are a wide variety of interbody devices available for use in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). While traditionally these interbodies are bullet-shaped, crescent-shaped cages have become increasingly common. There is a paucity of literature comparing the effect of cage geometry with substratification for surgical approach (minimally invasive (MIS) vs. open). The aim of this study was to determine the effect of implant geometry, positioning, and surgical approach on the correction of different spinal alignment parameters in patients undergoing TLIF. A retrospective chart and imaging review was performed on 103 patients with a total of 131 instrumented segments performed by a single surgeon. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and final postoperative standing lateral lumbar radiographs were evaluated for lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), and posterior disc height (PDH). Anterior-posterior implant positioning was recorded for initial and final postoperative radiographs. These measurements were compared among four groups: open bullet (OB), MIS bullet (MB), open crescent (OC), and MIS crescent (MC). SL increased in all groups by a mean of 2.9° at initial imaging and 2.2° at final imaging. The OC group had greater initial improvement in SL compared to the MB group (p = 0.02), though this effect was lost at final follow-up (p = 0.11). The OB and OC groups conferred greater initial improvement in ADH (p = 0.02; p = 0.04), while the OC group had greater final improvement in ADH compared to the MB and MC groups (p = 0.01; p = 0.01). The OC group had less initial improvement in PDH compared with the other groups (p = 0.03, p = 0.02, p < 0.01). The MB group provided greater final improvement in PDH compared with the MC and OC groups (p = 0.04, p = 0.01). Cage geometry, surgical approach, and implant position all demonstrated a statistically significant but clinically minor impact on segmental alignment for TLIF procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the prophylactic use of Floseal in reducing postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). TLIF is a lumbar spine decompression and fusion procedure with potential for postoperative blood loss. Prophylactic application of Floseal, a gelatin and thrombin-based haemostatic matrix to the surgical wound before closure was shown to be effective in reducing postoperative drain output in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This study postulated that prophylactic use of Floseal before wound closure would reduce postoperative blood loss in patients who underwent TLIF. Methods: Randomised controlled trial comparing prophylactic use of Floseal and control in patients undergoing single level or two-level TLIF. Primary outcomes included postoperative drain output within 24 h and postoperative transfusion rate. Secondary outcomes included days of drain placement, length of stay and haemoglobin level. Results: A total of 50 patients was recruited. Twenty six patients were allocated to the Floseal group and 24 were allocated to the control group. There were no baseline characteristic differences between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in primary outcomes which included postoperative drain output within 24 h and postoperative transfusion rate between patients who received prophylactic Floseal and control. There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes which included haemoglobin level, days of drain placement and length of stay between the two groups. Conclusion: Prophylactic use of Floseal was not shown to reduce postoperative bleeding in single level or two-level TLIF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design.: Retrospective cohort study. Objective.: The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (P /TLIF). Summary of Background Data.: Previous studies have shown that LLIF can improve neurological symptoms to a comparable degree to P /TLIF. However, data on the risk of SSI after LLIF is lacking compared with P /TLIF. Materials and Methods.: The study was conducted under a retrospective cohort design in patients undergoing LLIF or P /TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases between 2013 and 2020 using a hospital administrative database. We used propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounding factors including age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, number of fusion levels, hospital size, and surgery year. We estimated weighted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for SSI within 30 days postoperatively. Results.: We compared the risk of SSI between 2874 patients who underwent LLIF and 24,245 patients who received P/TLIF Patients who had received LLIF were at significantly less risk of experiencing an SSI compared with those receiving P/TLIF (0.7% vs. 1.2%; weighted OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36 –0.92; P=0.02). As a secondary outcome, patients who had received LLIF had less risk of transfusion (7.8% vs. 11.8%; weighted OR: 0.63; 95% CI:0.54 –0.73; P <0.001). Conclusions.: In this large retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing lumbar interbody fusion, LLIF was associated with a significantly lower risk of SSI than P /TLIF. The small, but significantly, decreased risk of SSI associated with LLIF may inform decisions regarding the technical approach for lumbar interbody fusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) is a surgical technique frequently used to treat symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aim to investigate the safety and efficacy of using a biplanar expandable cage in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis using a MIS TLIF approach.MethodsA retrospective review of patient records was performed on patients who underwent MIS TLIF for symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis using the FlareHawk cage over a 12-month period. Patient demographics, as well as preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographic outcome measures were recorded and analyzed.ResultsA total of 13 consecutive patients underwent MIS TLIF for symptomatic spondylolisthesis during the study period. The mean age was 60.2 ± 13.9 years, and 61.5% were female. The mean preoperative and postoperative slippage was 7.0 ± 3.0 mm and 1.0 ± 1.9 mm, respectively. The preoperative mean segmental lordosis was 5.1° ± 6.0°, mean anterior, posterior disc, and foraminal height were 9.1 ± 3.9 mm, 5.7 ± 1.5 mm, and 11.0 ± 2.0 mm, respectively. The postoperative mean segmental lordosis was 6.8° ± 4.7°, and mean anterior, posterior disc, and foraminal height were 11.4 ± 2.2 mm, 7.8 ± 1.0 mm, and 12.3 ± 1.3 mm. There was improvement in all radiographic parameters postoperatively. The mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain improved from 7.0 ± 2.9 and 5.1 ± 3.0 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 2.9 and 1.1 ± 1.7 at the latest clinic follow-up visit, respectively (P = .0081). The mean EuroQol-Five Dimensions (EQ5D) score improved from 0.37 ± 1.7 to 0.66 ± 0.23 after surgery. There was no subsidence, endplate violation, cage migration, or other implant-related complications. No patient required reoperation.ConclusionsThe biplanar expandable cage is both safe and efficacious in treating symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis using the MIS TLIF approach. Spine surgeons should be familiar with the biplanar expandable cage technology and keep it in their armamentarium in surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.Level of evidence4.

Abstract Background Regarding the increasing adoption of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for treating degenerative lumbar disorders, we aimed to evaluate whether OLIF, one of the options for anterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion, demonstrate clinical superiority over anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior approach, represented by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods Patients who received ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disorders during the period 2017–2019 were identified. Radiographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared during 2-year follow-up. Results A total of 348 patients with 501 correction levels were enrolled in the study. Fundamental sagittal alignment profiles were substantially improved at 2-year follow-up, particularly in the anterolateral approach (A/OLIF) group. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) in the ALIF group were superior when compared to the OLIF and TLIF group 2-year following surgery. However, comparisons of VAS-Total, VAS-Back, and VAS-Leg revealed no statistically significance across all approaches. TLIF demonstrated highest subsidence rate of 16%, while OLIF had least blood loss and was suitable for high body mass index patients. Conclusions Regarding treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders, ALIF of anterolateral approach demonstrated superb alignment correction and clinical outcome. Comparing to TLIF, OLIF possessed advantage in reducing blood loss, restoring sagittal profiles and the accessibility at all lumbar level while simultaneously achieving comparable clinical improvement. Patient selection in accordance with baseline conditions, and surgeon preference both remain crucial issues circumventing surgical approach strategy.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral wiltse transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with unilateral nail bar system fixation for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases with the assistance of a new automatic retraction device in a retrospective comparative study. Methods A total of 46 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases from September 2019 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Bilateral nail bar fixation with bullet-type fusion cage (ctrl group, 24 patients) and unilateral nail bar fixation on the affected side with kidney-like fusion cage (study group, 22 patients) were performed in TLIF via wiltse intermuscular approach assisted by a new automatic retraction device. The differences in intraoperative blood loss, operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative drainage, bed rest, VAS score, ODI score, JOA score, serological creatine kinase (CK), the proportion of multifidus atrophy, modified Pfirrmann classification and intervertebral space height of the upper intervertebral disc were compared between the two groups based on clinical and imaging data. Results Intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and postoperative drainage were significantly lower in study group than ctrl group, and there were no significant differences in bed rest time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time between them. In addition, there was no statistical difference in CK between the study group and the ctrl group at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was found in VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of lower limb pain, ODI index, modified Pfirrmann classification of the upper intervertebral disc and intervertebral space height of the upper intervertebral disc between two groups. The atrophy ratio of multifidus muscle was significantly lower in the study group. Conclusion The new automatic retraction device assisted unilateral TLIF surgery with wiltse approach combined with unilateral nail bar fixation is a simple, effective and easy to master surgical method for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases.

Background: Given the lack of guidelines regarding the operative management of elderly patients needing lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disease, it is often difficult to balance between invasiveness respecting the fragile spine and geriatric comorbidities. Aim: To compare reoperation rates and clinical outcome in patients above 70 years of age undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) with titanium rods or posterior stabilization with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for the treatment of one-level lumbar spine degenerative disease. Methods: Retrospective review of baseline characteristics, reoperation rates as well as the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients, older than 70 years, undergoing posterolateral fusion with PEEK rods (n = 76, PEEK group) or TLIF with titanium rods (n = 67, TLIF group) for a single-level lumbar degenerative disease from 2014 to 2020. Additional subanalysis on the patients above 80 years of age was performed. Results: Our results showed similar reoperation rates and outcomes in the TLIF and PEEK groups. However, intraoperative blood loss, administration of tranexamic acid, and operation time were significantly higher in the TLIF group. In patients older than 80 years, reoperation rates at first follow-up were significantly higher in the TLIF group, too. Conclusion: According to our results, posterior stabilization with PEEK rods is less invasive and was associated with significantly lower blood loss, administration of blood products and shorter operation time. Moreover, in patients above 80 years of age reoperations rates were lower with PEEK rods, as well. Nevertheless, the benefits of PEEK rods for foraminal stenosis still have to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF. Material and methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample. Results: Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD–1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD = − 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD = − 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To elucidate residual motion of cortical screw (CS) and pedicle screw (PS) constructs with unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (ul-PLIF), bilateral PLIF (bl-PLIF), facet-sparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (fs-TLIF), and facet-resecting TLIF (fr-TLIF). Methods: A total of 35 human cadaver lumbar segments were instrumented with PS (n = 18) and CS (n = 17). Range of motion (ROM) and relative ROM changes were recorded in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), and axial compression (AC) in five instrumentational states: without interbody fusion (wo-IF), ul-PLIF, bl-PLIF, fs-TLIF, and fr-TLIF. Results: Whereas FE, LB, AR, and AC noticeably differed between the instrumentational states, AS and LS were less prominently affected. Compared to wo-IF, ul-PLIF caused a significant increase in ROM with PS (FE + 42%, LB + 24%, AR + 34%, and AC + 77%), however, such changes were non-significant with CS. ROM was similar between wo-IF and all other interbody fusion techniques. Insertion of a second PLIF (bl-PLIF) significantly decreased ROM with CS (FE -17%, LB -26%, AR -20%, AC -51%) and PS (FE − 23%, LB − 14%, AR − 20%, AC − 45%,). Facet removal in TLIF significantly increased ROM with CS (FE + 6%, LB + 9%, AR + 17%, AC of + 23%) and PS (FE + 7%, AR + 12%, AC + 13%). Conclusion: bl-PLIF and TLIF show similarly low residual motion in both PS and CS constructs, but ul-PLIF results in increased motion. The fs-TLIF technique is able to further decrease motion compared to fr-TLIF in both the CS and PS constructs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the residual range of motion (ROM) of cortical screw (CS) versus pedicle screw (PS) instrumented lumbar segments and the additional effect of transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and cross-link (CL) augmentation. Methods: ROM of thirty-five human cadaver lumbar segments in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), lateral shear (LS), anterior shear (AS), axial rotation (AR), and axial compression (AC) was recorded. After instrumenting the segments with PS (n = 17) and CS (n = 18), ROM in relation to the uninstrumented segments was evaluated without and with CL augmentation before and after decompression and TLIF. Results: CS and PS instrumentations both significantly reduced ROM in all loading directions, except AC. In undecompressed segments, a significantly lower relative (and absolute) reduction of motion in LB was found with CS 61% (absolute 3.3°) as compared to PS 71% (4.0°; p = 0.048). FE, AR, AS, LS, and AC values were similar between CS and PS instrumented segments without interbody fusion. After decompression and TLIF insertion, no difference between CS and PS was found in LB and neither in any other loading direction. CL augmentation did not diminish differences in LB between CS and PS in the undecompressed state but led to an additional small AR reduction of 11% (0.15°) in CS and 7% (0.05°) in PS instrumentation. Conclusion: Similar residual motion is found with CS and PS instrumentation, except of slightly, but significantly inferior reduction of ROM in LB with CS. Differences between CS and PS in diminish with TLIF but not with CL augmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective case-control study. Objective: Only a few studies have studied the incidence of new-onset SI joint pain following lumbar spine fusion surgery. We aimed to explore the association between new-onset SI joint pain following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spine disorders and changes in spinopelvic parameters. Methods: A retrospective review of hospital records and imaging database of a tertiary care institute was done for patients who underwent TLIF from October 2018 to October 2019. The 354 patients who satisfied the eligibility criteria were divided into 2 groups(Group A, new-onset SI joint pain group, n = 34 and Group B, normal controls, n = 320). Symptomatic relief (>70% reduction in the VAS [Visual Analogue Scale] score) after 15 minutes of SI joint injection was considered diagnostic of SI joint pain. Clinical and radiological spinopelvic parameters were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Patients with postoperative SI joint pain (Group A) had significantly less preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis (p < 0.001) compared to the other group. Most of the patients in Group A had a cephalad migration of the apex postoperatively (30/34 patients) whereas majority of patients in group B had either predominant caudal migration (44/320 patients) or no migration of the lumbar apex (272/320 patients). Conclusions: The preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis are significantly less and the postoperative pelvic tilt is significantly high in patients with new-onset SI joint pain compared to the control group. The cephalad migration of the lumbar apex is significantly associated with new-onset SI joint pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is usually seen at lumbo-sacral region. Lumbarization of S1 is seen in less than 2% of the population and to have spondylolisthesis in this segment is even rarer. The purpose is to report a rare case of DS at S1-S2 level. Case Report A 52-year-old male, a farmer by profession, presented to Neurosurgery outpatient department with complaint of low back ache for 4 years, which was insidious and progressive. The pain radiated to both lower limbs with more on right than left side. Radiological evaluation with anteroposterior and lateral roentgenogram of lumbo-sacral spine revealed anterolisthesis of S1-S2 (Meyerding's grade 2). Magnetic resonance imaging reported S1-S2 disk bulge with bilateral foraminal stenosis. The patient underwent S1 laminectomy along with S1-S2 discectomy with bilateral S1 and S2 pedicle screws and rod fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Result Postoperative recovery was good with improvement in back pain along with power on postoperative day 1. Conclusion The prevalence of lumbarization is less than 2% and getting spondylolisthesis in this segment is even rarer. As this is one of the first of its kind of case, further case series or longitudinal studies of such cases may help understand better the pathomechanics related to spondylolisthesis at this level.

(1) Background: The technological advances achieved with minimally-invasive surgery have enabled procedures to be undertaken in outpatient settings, and there has been growing acceptance of performing minimally-invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC). The purposeof this study was to determine the comparative 30 day safety profile for patients treated with TLIF in the ASC versus the hospital setting. (2) Methods: This multi-center study retrospectively collected baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, and 30 day postoperative safety outcomes for patients having a TLIF using the VariLift®-LX expandable lumbar interbody fusion device. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing TLIF in the ASC (n = 53) versus in the hospital (n = 114). (3) Results: Patients treated in-hospital were significantly older, frailer and more likely to have had previous spinal surgery than ASC patients. Preoperative back and leg pain scores were similar between study groups (median, 7). ASC patients had almost exclusively one-level procedures (98%) vs. 20% of hospital procedures involving two-levels (p = 0.004). Most procedures (>90%) employed a stand-alone device. The median length of stay for hospital patients was five times greater than for ASC patients (1.4 days vs. 0.3 days, p = 0.001). Emergency department visits, re-admissions and reoperations were rare whether the patients were managed in the traditional hospital setting or the ASC. (4) Conclusions: There were equivalent 30 day postoperative safety profiles for patients undergoing a minimally-invasive TLIF irrespective of surgical setting. For appropriately selected surgical candidates, the ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of unilateral wiltse transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined with unilateral nail bar system fixation for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases with the assistance of a new automatic retraction device in a retrospective comparative study. Methods: A total of 46 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases from September 2019 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Bilateral nail bar fixation with bullet-type fusion cage (ctrl group, 24 patients) and unilateral nail bar fixation on the affected side with kidney-like fusion cage (study group, 22 patients) were performed in TLIF via wiltse intermuscular approach assisted by a new automatic retraction device. The differences in intraoperative blood loss, operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative drainage, bed rest, VAS score, ODI score, JOA score, serological creatine kinase (CK), the proportion of multifidus atrophy, modified Pfirrmann classification and intervertebral space height of the upper intervertebral disc were compared between the two groups based on clinical and imaging data. Results: Intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and postoperative drainage were significantly lower in study group than ctrl group, and there were no significant differences in bed rest time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time between them. In addition, there was no statistical difference in CK between the study group and the ctrl group at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was found in VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of lower limb pain, ODI index, modified Pfirrmann classification of the upper intervertebral disc and intervertebral space height of the upper intervertebral disc between two groups. The atrophy ratio of multifidus muscle was significantly lower in the study group. Conclusion: The new automatic retraction device assisted unilateral TLIF surgery with wiltse approach combined with unilateral nail bar fixation is a simple, effective and easy to master surgical method for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aimed to compare the incidence of intraoperative endplate injury in patients who underwent Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and mini-open lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. The independent risk factors related to endplate injury in LLIF procedure were analyzed. A total of 199 patients who underwent LLIF (n = 106) or TLIF (n = 93) surgery from June 2019 to September 2021 were reviewed. The endplate injury was assessed by postoperative sagittal CT scan. A binary logistic analysis model were used to identify independent risk factors related to LLIF endplate injury based on univariate analysis. There was an obvious difference in the occurrence of intraoperative endplate injury between LLIF (42/106, 39.6%) and TLIF group (26/93, 28%), although it did not reach the significant level. L1 CT value (OR = 0.985, 95% CI = 0.972–0.998), cage position (OR = 3.881, 95% CI = 1.398–10.771) and height variance (OR = 1.263, 95% CI = 1.013–1.575) were independent risk factors for endplate injury in LLIF procedure. According to the cage settlement patterns, there 5 types of A to E. The severity of the facet joint degeneration was positively related to the occurrence of endplate injury. The incidence of intraoperative endplate injury is higher in LLIF than in TLIF procedures. Low bone quantity, cage posterior position and larger height variance are risk factors to induce endplate injury in LLIF surgery. The facet joint degeneration may be related to severe endplate injuries and even fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To investigate the biomechanical effects of interbody cage height on adjacent segments in patients with lumbar degeneration undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery, so as to provide references for selection of interbody cage. Methods The finite element model of normal lower lumbar spine (L3–S1) was built and validated, then constructed three different degenerative segments in L3–L4, and the cages with different height (8, 10, 12, 14 mm) were implanted into L4–L5 disc. All the twelve models were loaded with pure moment of 7.5 N m to produce flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation motions on lumbar spine, and the effects of cage height on range of motion (RoM) and intervertebral pressure in lumbar spine were investigated. Results The RoM of adjacent segments and the maximum stress of intervertebral discs increased with the increase in cage height, but this trend was not obvious in mild and moderate degeneration groups. After implantation of four different height cages (8, 10, 12, 14 mm), the RoM of L3/L4 segment reached the maximum during extension. The RoM of mild degeneration group was 2.07°, 2.45°, 2.48°, 2.54°, that of moderate degeneration group was 1.79°, 1.97°, 2.05°, 2.05°, and that of severe degeneration group was 1.43°, 1.66°, 1.74°, 1.74°. The stress of L3–L4 intervertebral disc reached the maximum during flexion. The maximum stress of L3–L4 intervertebral disc was 20.16 MPa, 20.28 MPa, 20.31 MPa and 20.33 MPa in the mild group, 20.58 MPa, 20.66 MPa, 20.71 MPa and 20.75 MPa in the moderate group, and 21.27 MPa, 21.40 MPa, 21.50 MPa and 21.60 MPa in the severe group. Conclusion For patients with mild-to-moderate lumbar degenerative disease who need to undergo TLIF surgery, it is recommended that the height of fusion cage should not exceed the original intervertebral space height by 2 mm, while for patients with severe degeneration, a fusion cage close to the original intervertebral height should be selected as far as possible, and the intervertebral space should not be overstretched.

Background and Objective: There is a paucity of literature comparing unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UITLIF) with bilateral instrumented TLIF (BITLIF) regarding radiological alignment, including the coronal balance, even though UITLIF might have asymmetric characteristics in the coronal plane. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical and long-term radiological outcomes of 1-level UITLIF and BITLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) including lumbar spinal stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis (degenerative or spondylolytic). Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent 1-level UITLIF with two rectangular polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages or BITLIF between November 2009 and June 2016 by four surgeons with ≥5 years of follow-up at a single hospital were included. We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes between the UITLIF and BITLIF. Results: In total, 63 and 111 patients who underwent UITLIF and BITLIF, respectively, were enrolled. The median follow-up was 85.55 months (range: 60–130). The UITLIF group had a significantly shorter operation time (185.0 [170.0–210.0] vs. 225.0 [200.0–265.0], p < 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (300.0 [250.0–500.0] vs. 550.0 [400.0–800.0], p < 0.001) than the BITLIF group. Regarding the clinical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the intermittent claudication score (p = 0.495) and Kirkaldy–Willis criteria (p = 0.707) at 1 year postoperatively. The interval changes in the local coronal Cobb angle at the index level, L1-S1 lordotic angle, and coronal off-balance from the immediate postoperative radiograph to the last follow-up were not significantly different (p = 0.687, p = 0.701, and p = 0.367, respectively). Conclusions: UITLIF with two rectangular PEEK cages may provide comparable clinical outcomes and radiological longevity including coronal alignment to BITLIF in 1-level LDD. In addition, UITLIF has advantages over BITLIF in terms of operative time and blood loss.

Introduction: Instrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different advantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Research question: This is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively. Material and methods: Data were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion. Results: 92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P

ObjectiveOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the clinical and radiological effects of these two techniques.MethodsA search of relevant literature from several databases was conducted until November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, clinical and radiological results, and complications were analyzed.ResultsFifteen qualified studies were included. OLIF showed a shorter operative time and length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF. Early postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain were significantly lower in OLIF than in TLIF (P = 0.004). Noteworthy, although the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of the OLIF group was higher than that of the TLIF group (P = 0.04), the postoperative ODI was significantly lower (P

Study designA retrospective case-control study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the nationwide trends and complication rates associated with outpatient posterior lumbar fusion (PLF).Summary of background dataOutpatient lumbar spine fusion is now possible secondary to minimally invasive techniques that allow for reduced hospital stays and analgesic requirements. Limited data are currently available regarding the clinical outcome of outpatient lumbar fusion.MethodsThe Humana administrative claims database was queried for patients who underwent one to two-level PLF (CPT-22612 or CPT-22633 AND ICD-9-816.2) as either outpatients or inpatients from Q1 2007 to Q2 2015. The incidence of perioperative medical and surgical complications was determined by querying for relevant International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) of complications among outpatients relative to inpatients undergoing PLF.ResultsCohorts of 770 patients who underwent outpatient PLF and 26,826 patients who underwent inpatient PLF were identified. The median age was in the 65 to 69 years age group for both cohorts. The annual relative incidence of outpatient PLF remained stable across the study period (R = 0.03, P = 0.646). Adjusting for age, gender, and comorbidities, patients undergoing outpatient PLF had higher likelihood of revision/extension of posterior fusion [(OR 2.33, confidence interval (CI) 2.06-2.63, P

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 112 patients were retrospectively analyzed, and were divided into an MIS-TLIF group and OPEN-TLIF group. The operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, the content of creatine kinase(CK) and complications, were recorded. VAS score and ODI index were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Bridwell grading was used to evaluate postoperative interbody fusion. Screw position was evaluated by Rao grading. Results: Compared with the OPEN-TLIF group, the MIS-TLIF group had longer operation times, more intraoperative fluoroscopy times, but shorter postoperative bed times (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the distribution of type A screws, but the type B screw in the MIS-TLIF group was higher (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The postoperative quality of life score and radiological outcomes of the two types of surgery in two-level lumbar degenerative diseases was similar, and there was no significant difference in muscle injury and complications, but the operation time and intraoperative radiation exposurewere higher than in the OPEN-TLIF group, and the pedicle screws were more likely to deviate laterally out of the vertebral body. Therefore, OPEN-TLIF is recommended for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases of two segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective cohort comparison study.Objective: To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.Summary Of Background Data: While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist.Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed.Results: A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P <0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied.Conclusions: The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.Level Of Evidences: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review.Objective: To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes.Summary Of Background Data: Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days.Results: In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84).Conclusion: Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective review.Objective: The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques.Summary Of Background Data: Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID.Methods: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables.Results: A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015).Conclusion: Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following anterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis in patients presenting with predominant back pain versus predominant leg pain symptoms. A single-surgeon database was reviewed for anterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures for isthmic spondylolisthesis. Patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and PROMs were collected. Demographic/perioperative characteristics were compared among groups using χ2 and Student t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Mean PROM scores were compared using an unpaired Student t test. Postoperative improvement from preoperative baseline within each cohort was assessed with paired-samples t test. MCID achievement rates were compared with χ2 analysis. In total, 143 patients were included with 65 patients in the predominant back pain and 78 patients in the predominant leg pain cohort. Preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) leg was noted to be significantly greater in predominant leg pain cohort (P < 0.001). Cohorts demonstrated significant mean postoperative differences for the following PROMs at the following postoperative time points: significant differences were noted between cohorts for rate of achievement of MCID for the following PROMs at the following time points: VAS back at 2 years and VAS leg at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/overall (P < 0.036, all). Compared with patients presenting for surgery with predominant leg pain symptoms, patients undergoing lumbar fusion at L4–L5 and L5–S1 for isthmic spondylolisthesis with predominant back pain symptoms may demonstrate improved long-term clinical outcomes for reported back pain, leg pain, and disability and reduced postoperative length of stay and narcotic consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pedicle screw placement during spine fusion is physically and mentally demanding for surgeons. Consequently, spine surgeons can become fatigued, which has implications for both patient safety and surgeon well-being., Purpose: We sought to assess the cognitive workload of surgeons placing pedicle screws using robotic-assisted navigation compared with fluoroscopic and computed tomography (CT)-assisted placement., Methods: We performed a nonrandomized prospective controlled trial to compare the cognitive workload of 3 surgeons performing single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using robotic, CT, or fluoroscopic navigation on 25 patients (15 in the robotic navigation group and 10 in the nonrobotic group). Immediately after each procedure, surgeons submitted the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), which has 6 subscales: mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, performance, effort, and frustration. Four tasks associated with pedicle screw placement were assessed independently: (1) screw planning, (2) calibrating robot/obtaining imaging/registration, (3) pedicle cannulation, and (4) screw placement. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were obtained and reviewed., Results: Surgeons' self-reported cognitive workload was significantly reduced when using robotic-assisted navigation versus CT/fluoroscopic navigation. Workload was reduced for screw planning, pedicle cannulation, and screw placement. In addition, there were significant reductions in each subdomain for these 3 tasks, encompassing mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, effort, and frustration with improved task performance., Conclusions: This study found significant reductions in mental workload with improved perceived performance for robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement compared with fluoroscopic and CT-navigation techniques. Lowering the cognitive burden associated with screw placement may allow surgeons to address the remainder of the operative case with less decision fatigue, prevent complications, and increase surgeon wellness., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: KWM reports relationships with NIH, OREF, SRS, Johnson & Johnson, GE Health, and Sustain Surgical. SQ reports relationships with Viseon, Tissue Differentiation Intelligence, HS2, Minimally Invasive Spine Study Group, Stryker, SpineGuard, Globus Medical, Surgalign, Lifelink.com, Spinal Simplicity, Contemporary Spine Surgery, NASS, Annals of Translational Medicine, HSS Journal, Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS), Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons (ABJS), and International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS). SI reports relationships with Innovasis, HS2, Stryker, Healthgrades, and Globus Medical. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Study Design: Retrospective series., Objective: Screw loosening in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease is a major complication of osteopenia or osteoporosis. This study investigated the risk of screw loosening following either MIS-TLIF or pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization (DS) in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis., Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients receiving 1- or 2-level MIS-TLIF or DS in a single institute. All patients were diagnosed as having lumbar spondylosis without concurrent spondylolisthesis and found by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to have osteopenia or osteoporosis. Screw loosening was identified by X-ray and CT. Clinical outcomes were also assessed., Results: A total of 103 patients (50 MIS-TLIF and 53 DS) were confirmed to have osteopenia (-2.5

Zixiang Wang,1,&ast; Chenyang Zhuang,1,&ast; Weixin Chen,1 Zefang Li,2 Juan Li,1,3 Hong Lin,1,3 Dong Jian1 1Department of Orthopedics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Orthopedics, Qianjiang Central Hospital of Chongqing, Chongqing, 409000, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Geriatrics Medical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201100, People’s Republic of China&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Hong Lin; Dong JianDepartment of Orthopedics, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Fenglin Road 180, Shanghai, 200032, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86-13636526656; +86-13916930859Email lin.hong1@zs-hospital.sh.cn; dong.jian@zs-hospital.sh.cnPurpose: The research aimed to compare the therapeutic effect of teriparatide (TPTD) and zoledronic acid (ZOL) therapy on bone formation and spinal fusion in patients with osteoporosis (OP) who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).Methods: On the basis of different anti-OP treatment options, the TPTD group was treated daily with TPTD (20 μg. ih. qd) for at least 6 months, while the ZOL group was treated with a single dose of ZOL (5 mg. ivgtt. st) postoperatively. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), bone mineral density (BMD), and concentration of bone turnover markers before, 6, and 12 months after surgery were evaluated. X-ray and three-dimensional computed tomography scans were performed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to assess interbody fusion.Results: The number of patients in the TPTD and ZOL groups was 29 and 38 patients, respectively. The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly reduced at 6 and 12 months after TLIF. Compared with that of baseline, the lumbar spine BMD of TPTD patients increased significantly from 0.716± 0.137 g/cm2 to 0.745± 0.124 g/cm2 and 0.795± 0.123 g/cm2 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, and was significantly higher than that of the ZOL group at 12 months (0.720± 0.128 g/cm2). The bone formation marker, P1NP, in the TPTD group increased significantly (145.48± 66.64 ng/mL and 119.55± 88.27 ng/mL) compared with baseline (44.67± 25.15 ng/mL) and in the ZOL group (28.82± 19.76 ng/mL and 29.94± 20.67 ng/mL) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The fusion rates in the TPTD and ZOL groups were 57% and 45% at 6 months, without statistical significance. However, TPTD had a more statistically significant positive influence on fusion rate than ZOL at 12 months (86% vs 70%).Conclusion: TPTD was more efficient than ZOL in bone formation and spinal fusion in OP patients who underwent TLIF.Keywords: teriparatide, zoledronic acid, osteoporosis, TLIF

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.Objective: To compare robotics and navigation for minimally invasive elective lumbar fusion in terms of radiation exposure and time demand.Summary Of Background Data: Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the benefits of both navigation and robotics over fluoroscopy in terms of radiation exposure, literature is lacking in studies comparing robotics versus navigation.Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent elective one-level or two-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by a single surgeon using navigation (Stryker SpineMask) or robotics (ExcelsiusGPS) were included (navigation 2017-2019, robotics 2019-2021, resulting in prospective cohorts of consecutive patients for each modality). All surgeries had the intraoperative computed tomography workflow. The two cohorts were compared for radiation exposure [fluoroscopy time and radiation dose: image capture, surgical procedure, and overall) and time demand (time for setup and image capture, operative time, and total operating room (OR) time].Results: A total of 244 patients (robotics 111, navigation 133) were included. The two cohorts were similar in terms of baseline demographics, primary/revision surgeries, and fusion levels. For one-level TLIF, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, and % of radiation for surgical procedure were significantly less with robotics compared with navigation (20 vs. 25 s, P <0.001; 38 vs. 42 mGy, P =0.05; 58% vs. 65%, P =0.021). Although time for setup and image capture was significantly less with robotics (22 vs. 25 min, P <0.001) and operative time was significantly greater with robotics (103 vs. 93 min, P <0.001), there was no significant difference in the total OR time (145 vs. 141 min, P =0.25). Similar findings were seen for two-level TLIF as well.Conclusion: Robotics for minimally invasive TLIF, compared with navigation, leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure both to the surgeon and patient, with no significant difference in the total OR time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Lumbar stenosis and instability frequently coexist. Spinal canal decompression is often combined with fixation of the relevant vertebral segment and can be performed using different techniques and devices, including pedicle screws and interspinous devices and facet screws. The present study evaluates the clinical outcome of laminectomy and single-level fusion using a minimally invasive technique for rigid posterior spinal column fixation with two cross-linked lag screws.Methods: The records of patients operated from 2012 to 2016 were retrieved from the computerised medical record database system. Data on age, sex, surgical level, type of deficit and disease were collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered pre-operatively and at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery.Main Findings: A total of 46 consecutive patients were operated between January 2012 to October 2016. One intraoperative complication was reported, and 4 patients experienced radiographic pseudarthrosis postoperatively. Five patients underwent additional surgery. The lumbar and lower limb VAS score, ODI and SF-36 scores showed statistically significant improvement for each score at the first and last follow-up (p < 0.01).Conclusion: Percutaneous lumbar transfacet screw placement with the Facet-Link ® system is feasible and safe but with a relatively high rate of poor articular fusion. This technique can reduce the morbidity of single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and mild instability and improve patient outcome scores. Comparative studies, including randomised controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Clinical outcomes amongst Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients have shown satisfactory results being reported after lumbar surgery. The increased adoption of the interbody fusion technique has been due to a high fusion rate and less invasive procedures. However, the radiographic outcome for RA patients after receiving interbody fusion has scarcely been addressed in the available literature. Methods Patients receiving interbody fusion including ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF were examined for implant cage motion and fusion status at two-year follow-up. Parameters for the index correction level including ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH were measured and compared at pre-OP, post-OP, and two-year follow-up. Results We enrolled 64 RA patients at 104 levels (mean 64.0 years old, 85.9% female) received lumbar interbody fusion. There were substantial improvement in ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH after surgery, with both ADH and PDH having significantly dropped at two-year follow up. The OLIF group suffered from a higher subsidence rate with no significant difference in fusion rate when compared to TLIF. The fusion rate and subsidence rate for all RA patients was 90.4 and 28.8%, respectively. Conclusions We revealed the radiographic outcomes of lumbar interbody fusions towards symptomatic lumbar disease in RA patients with good fusion outcome despite the relative high subsidence rate amongst the OLIF group. Those responsible for intra-operative endplate management should be more cautious to avoid post-OP cage subsidence.

Abstract Background Instrumented posterior lumbar fusion (IPLF) with and without transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common treatment for low back pain when conservative interventions have failed. Certain patient comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors, such as obesity and smoking, are known to negatively affect these procedures. An advanced cellular bone allograft (CBA) with viable osteogenic cells (V-CBA) has demonstrated high fusion rates, but the rates for patients with severe and/or multiple comorbidities remain understudied. The purpose of this study was to assess fusion outcomes in patients undergoing IPLF/TLIF using V-CBA with baseline comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors known to negatively affect bone fusion. Methods This was a retrospective study of de-identified data from consecutive patients at an academic medical center who underwent IPLF procedures with or without TLIF, and with V-CBA. Baseline patient and procedure characteristics were assessed. Radiological outcomes included fusion rates per the Lenke scale. Patient-reported clinical outcomes were evaluated via the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Operating room (OR) times and intraoperative blood loss rates were also assessed. Results Data from 96 patients were assessed with a total of 222 levels treated overall (mean: 2.3 levels) and a median follow-up time of 16 months (range: 6 to 45 months). Successful fusion (Lenke A or B) was reported for 88 of 96 patients (91.7%) overall, including in all IPLF-only patients. Of 22 patients with diabetes in the IPLF+TLIF group, fusion was reported in 20 patients (90.9%). In IPLF+TLIF patients currently using tobacco (n = 19), fusion was reported in 16 patients (84.3%), while in those with a history of tobacco use (n = 53), fusion was observed in 48 patients (90.6%). Successful fusion was reported in all 6 patients overall with previous pseudarthrosis at the same level. Mean postoperative ODI and VAS scores were significantly reduced versus preoperative ratings. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that V-CBA consistently yields successful fusion and significant decreases in patient-reported ODI and VAS, despite patient comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors that are known to negatively affect such bony healing.

Abstract Background With the progress and success in minimally invasive surgery of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF), the musculoskeletal injury was minimized. However, the role of postoperative orthosis in MIS TLIF has not been established and there is little evidence supporting the routine use of orthosis in MIS TLIF. Methods This is a prospective randomized clinical study. 90 patients who underwent MIS TLIF were randomly divided into groups A (with postoperative spinal orthosis) and B (without postoperative spinal orthosis). Patients were followed up for an average of 12.6 months. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Fusion rate was classified with the BSF scale system at postoperative 6-month, and 12-month. Results Both groups had similar patient demographics. The use of postoperative spinal orthosis had no significant influence on instrumentation-related complications or radiological parameters at each follow-up. Conclusions In this study, we conclude that postoperative spinal orthosis is not necessary for MIS TLIF. Patients without postoperative spinal orthosis had the same fusion rates and improvement of VAS and ODI scores.

Background: Controversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis. Methods: A consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS. Results: Sixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was 5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°. Conclusions: While group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique.

PurposeThis study aimed to provide a direct meta-analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between expandable cages and static cages in patients with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsA search of relevant materials from databases was performed from inception to March 7, 2022. Clinical and radiological outcomes were included.ResultsTen studies (1,440 patients) were included. The anterior disc height and foraminal height for expandable cages were substantially higher than those for static cages at the final follow-up (P 0.05). Oswestry disability index scores for expandable cages were substantially lower than those for static cages at the final follow-up (P = 0.0007). Interestingly, although the preoperative visual analog scores for back and leg pain were significantly higher in the expandable group than in the static group (P

• No studies have compared the outcomes between stand-alone pedicle screw fixation and minimally invasive TLIF. • MI-TLIF grants access to the disc through a posterior approach with unilateral facetectomy and discectomy for cage insertion. • Stand-alone percutaneous pedicle screws fixation provides indirect decompression of the spinal canal and neural foramina. • No significant differences in postoperative PROMs and patients' satisfaction were observed between the groups. • There was no superiority of either surgical technique concerning pain and functional outcomes after 24 months. In adult patients affected by degenerative disc disease with lumbar instability and chronic low back pain, spine surgery with lumbar fixation aims to reduce segmental instability and pain. Different techniques have been developed, but the optimal surgical technique remains controversial. No studies have compared the clinical and radiological outcomes between stand-alone pedicle screw fixation (SAPF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). This was a retrospective study. All patients who underwent surgery for single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 lumbar stenosis, associated with minor lumbar instability and treated with SAPF or MI-TLIF techniques were included in the study. Data were collected preoperatively and at 24 monts follow-up. Clinical primary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability and self reported back and leg pain. In addition, perioperative data and complications were recorded. Segmental lordosis (L4-L5 and L5-S1) and overall lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) were measured on lumbar X-Rays preoperatively and at least 24 months postoperatively. 277 patients were firstly identified. Baseline data and a minimum of two-year follow-up were available for 62 patients. After the propensity score matching, 44 patients (22 patients in the SAPF group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group) were matched. At 24 months follow-up, no difference between the two groups of patients in NRS (p = 0.11) and ODI scores (p = 0.21) were observed. Patients' satisfaction at follow-up was also not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, a significant improvement in the walked distance was observed after surgery (p = 0.05) while no difference was observed regarding the type of surgery performed (p = 1.00). No differences were found in the pre- and post-operative median lumbar lordosis (p = 0.91 and p = 0.67) and the same findings were observed for lumbar segmental lordosis (p = 0.65 and p = 0.41 respectively). Significant improvements in ODI and NRS-scores were recorded after 24 months follow-up with both SAPF and MI-TLIF. No significant differences in postoperative PROMs and patients' satisfaction were observed between the groups. The results of our study indicate no superiority of either surgical technique concerning pain and functional outcomes after 24 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]