Clinical results and intramedullary signal changes of posterior decompression with transforaminal interbody fusion for thoracic myelopathy caused by combined ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament and ligamentum flavum

Background Surgical treatment of thoracic myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament （OPLL） and ossification of the ligamentum flavum （OLF） is technically demanding, and the results tend to be unfavorable. Various operative approaches and treatment strategies have been attempted, and posterior decompression with transforaminal thoracic interbody fusion （PTTIF） may be the optimal method with which the anterior-posterior compression was removed in one step. It is comparatively less traumatic with fewer serious complications.

Two-Year Outcomes of Midline lumbar Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of L4-L5 Degenerative Disease

Objective We aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of midline lumbar fusion(MIDLF)versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MI-TLIF)in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and/or stenosis in L4-L5 two years after surgery.Methods Consecutively treated patients with lumbar pathology who underwent MIDLF(n=16)and a historical control group who underwent MI-TLIF(n=34)were included.Clinical symptoms were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index(ODI),the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey,and visual analog scale(VAS)scores before surgery and 3,6,12,and 24 months after surgery.Results The mean operative time and hematocrit(HCT,Day 1)were significantly shorter and lower in MIDLF cases(174 min vs.229 min,P<0.001;0.34 vs.0.36,P=0.037).The MI-TLIF group showed better improvement than the MIDLF group in ODI and VAS back and leg pain at 3 months postoperatively.VAS leg pain was higher in MIDLF than in MI-TLIF cases at 6 months.At 24 months follow-up,VAS back pain was higher in MI-TLIF than in MIDLF cases(P=0.018).Conclusion MIDLF is comparable to MI-TLIF at L4-5 in clinical outcomes and fusion rates,and the results verified the meaningful advantage of using MIDLF for the elderly with osteoporosis.

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion： An Updated Meta-analysis

Background： The previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion （MIS-TLIF） has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures. Methods： Prospective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database （the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term）. The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios （RRs） and weighted mean differences （WMDs） with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data. Results： Twenty-four studies （n =1967 patients） were included in this review （n =951, open-TLIF, n 1016, MIS-TLIF）. MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score （VAS）-back pain score （WMD 0.44; P= 0.001）, Oswestry Disabilities Index （WMD 1.57; P =0.005）, early ambulation （WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001）, less blood loss （WMD = -265.59; P 〈 0.00001）, and a shorter hospital stay （WMD =-1.89; P 〈 0.0001）. However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate （RR =0.99; P = 0.34）, VAS-leg pain （WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26）, complication rate （RR = 0.84; P = 0.35）, operation time （WMD = 5.23; P = 0.82）, or reoperation rate （RR = 0.73; P = 0.32）. Conclusions： MIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.

Comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease： a meta-analysis

Background Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion （TLIF） through a minimally invasive approach （mTLIF） was introduced to reduce soft tissue injury and speed recovery. Studies with small numbers of patients have been carried out, comparing mTLIF with traditional open TLIF （oTLIF）, but inconsistent outcomes were reported.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Traumatic Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

To evaluate the clinical outcome,effectiveness and safety of the surgical management of traumatic lumbar spondylolisthesis with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with short segmental instrumentation fixation.A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 24 patients with traumatic lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with TLIF procedure was carried out.Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring was used to confirm the peripheral neural function intact during the reduction of the spondylolisthesis.Preoperative clinical and radiographic evaluation of all cases were originally collected prospectively.Data regarding blood loss,operative time,duration of hospital stay,radiographic fusion,instrumentation failure and clinical result were collected and observed at regular follow-up periods.All patients were engaged in high-energy accidents in the lower back and 16 patients had concomitant injuries.The mean operative time was 124 min,mean blood loss was 350 mL,and mean hospital stay was 6.5 days.There were no complications such as incision infection,cerebrospinal fluide (CSF) leakage and nerve root injury and so on.All patients demonstrated a solid lumbar interbody fusion within 4 months,and no evidence of spondylolisthesis correction loss,instrumentation failure and loosing.They all were completely asymptomatic,with normal neurologic findings,and had resumed their previous level of physical activities on the final follow-up.Meticulous clinical examination and careful imaging assessment could assist an early diagonosis in cases of traumatic lumbar spondylolisthesis.Performing open reduction and the TLIF procedure as soon as possible could restore segmental stability and painless function.The TLIF procedure was a safe,effective technique to treat traumatic lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Biomechanical change of lumbar unilateral graded facetectomy and strategies of its microsurgical reconstruction:report of 23 cases

Objective： To evaluate the lumbar stability and the primary clinical results of unilateral facetectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion （TLIF） and unilateral pedicle screw fixation by X-Tube system. Methods： Five human lumbar cadaveric functional spine units（FSU） were obtained and graded facetectomy by 0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and 4/4 were performed respectively on the left articular process of them. The stability of these 5 models was evaluated at flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. After a serial of biomechanical researches, 23 patients from June 2004 to March 2006 in our department underwent unilateral facetectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion （posterior lumbar interbody fusion） and unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation by X-Tube system. After general anaesthesia, with the guide of fluoroscopy and using X-Tube system, procedures of unilateral endoscopic facetectomy, spinal nerve root decompression, autologus spongy bone transplantation, one cage oblique insertion and unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation were performed. Results： There was no significant difference in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation of lumbar motion range after unilateral graded facetectomy. The stability of left/right axial direction was greatly affected when the range of graded facetectomy exceed 1/2. According to the Nakai criteria, for the 23 patients, the clinical result was excellent in 15 （65.2%）, good in 6 （26.1%） and fair in 2 （8.7%）. The fusion rate was 95.6% in excellent and good cases. Although partial absorption of bone grafts was observed in 1 case which might indicate a unsuccessful fusion, there was no loosing and replacement of instrument and no clinical symptoms occurred. Conclusion： The lumbar stability will be affected significantly when the range of graded facetectomy exceeds 1/2. Procedures of unilateral facetectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral pedicle screw fixation is an optional strategy for microsurgical reconstruction, though the indications of the procedure should be carefully restricted.