Correlation study between the changes of motor evoked potential and the improvement of spinal canal volume in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Objective:To analyze the correlation between the amplitude changes of motor evoked potential(MEP),the 3D volume changes of spinal canal measuring by postoperative CT and the improvement rate of clinical symptoms after the spinal canal decompression in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MIS-TLIF),and to explore the predictive value of the changes of both MEP amplitude and spinal canal volume in the assessment of long-term clinical prognosis in MIS-TLIF.Methods:A retrospective study of 68 patients with L4/5 spinal stenosis treated with MIS-TLIF was performed.The changes of both intraoperative MEP amplitude and 3D spinal canal volume during the spinal canal decompression,as well as the visual analogue scale(VAS)and Oswestry dysfunction index(ODI)scores in the long-term follow-up were all recorded.Results:The values of intraoperative MEP amplitude was 159.04%higher in 68 patients with MIS-TLIF after spinal canal decompression(P<0.01).The 3 postoperative 3D spinal canal volume(4.89±1.27)cm increased by 31.22%in comparison 3 with preoperative date(3.78±1.08)cm(P<0.01).The VAS and ODI scores were improved to 78.55%and 80.60%,respectively at the last follow-up(P<0.01).The improvement rate of MEP amplitude on the decompression side was positively correlated with the improvement rate of postoperative spinal canal volume(r=0.272,P=0.025).The improvement rate of postoperative spinal canal volume was positively correlated with the improvement rate of VAS and ODI at the last follow-up(r=0.656,r=0.490,P<0.01).Moreover,the improvement rate of MEP amplitude on the decompression side was also positively correlated with the improvement rate of VAS and ODI at the last follow-up(r=0.322 and 0.235,respectively,P<0.05).Conclusion:The increase of MEP amplitude after spinal canal decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated by MIS-TLIF was closely correlated with both of the increase of spinal canal volume and the improvement of clinical symptoms.Therefore,MEP amplitude monitoring was not only the one of the important monitoring methods for predicting the prognosis of MIS-TLIF but also the reliably predictive value in the long-term clinical prognosis in MIS-TLIF.

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.

Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine

Degenerative disease of the lumbar spine is a common and increasingly prevalent condition that is often implicated as the primary reason for chronic low back pain and the leading cause of disability in the western world. Surgical management of lumbar degenerative disease has historically been approached by way of open surgical procedures aimed at decompressing and/or stabilizing the lumbar spine. Advances in technology andsurgical instrumentation have led to minimally invasive surgical techniques being developed and increasingly used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to the traditional open spine surgery, minimally invasive techniques require smaller incisions and decrease approach-related morbidity by avoiding muscle crush injury by self-retaining retractors, preventing the disruption of tendon attachment sites of important muscles at the spinous processes, using known anatomic neurovascular and muscle planes, and minimizing collateral soft-tissue injury by limiting the width of the surgical corridor. The theoretical benefits of minimally invasive surgery over traditional open surgery include reduced blood loss, decreased postoperative pain and narcotics use, shorter hospital length of stay, faster recover and quicker return to work and normal activity. This paper describes the different minimally invasive techniques that are currently available for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine.

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.

Mast Quadrant-assisted Minimally Invasive Modified Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion： Single Incision Versus Double Incision

Background： The concept of minimally invasive techniques is to make every effort to reduce tissue damage. Certainly, reducing skin incision is an important part of these techniques. This study aimed to investigate the clinical feasibility of Mast Quadrant-assisted modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion （TLIF） with a small single posterior median incision. Methods： During the period of March 2011 to March 2012, 34 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar disease underwent the minimally invasive modified TLIF assisted by Mast Quadrant with a small single posterior median incision （single incision group）. The cases in this group were compared to 37 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar disease in the double incision group. The perioperative conditions of patients in these two groups were statistically analyzed and compared. The Oswestry Disability Index （ODI） scores, Visual Analog Scale （VAS） scores, and sacrospinalis muscle damage evaluation indicators before operation and 3, 12 months postoperation were compared. Results： A total of 31 and 35 cases in the single incision and double incision groups, respectively, completed at least 12 months of systemic follow-up. The differences in perioperative conditions between the two groups were not statistically significant. The incision length of the single incision group was significantly shorter than that of the double incision group （P 〈 0.01）. The ODI and VAS scores of patients in both groups improved significantly at 3 and 12 months postoperation. However, these two indicators at 3 and 12 months postoperation and the sacrospinalis muscle damage evaluation indicators at 3 months postoperation did not differ significantly between the two groups （P _〉 0.05）. Conclusions： Mast Quadrant-assisted modified TLIF with a small single posterior median incision has excellent clinical feasibility compared to minimally invasive TLIF with a double paramedian incision.

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.

Biomechanical evaluation of two fusion techniques based on finite element analysis:Percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

As a novel minimally invasive technique,percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(PETLIF)has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.The purpose of this study was to analyze these two operation types’biomechanical performances of PE-TLIF and traditional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MIS-TLIF)using the finite element(FE)method.The intact FE models of L4-L5 were established and validated based on the CT images.On this basis,the FE models of MIS-TLIF and PETLIF were established and analyzed.It is demonstrated that for lumbar interbody fusion with the oblique asymmetrically implanted cage under bilateral pedicle screws and rods fixation,such as MIS-TLIF and PE-TLIF,different degrees of articular process resection have no significant effect on the cage subsidence,and the surgical segment can achieve similar stability.In addition,the maximum stress of the L4 inferior endplate of MIS-TLIF and PE-TLIF is greater than that of the L5 superior endplate,which indicates that MIS-TLIF and PE-TLIF can cause cage subsidence in the L4 inferior endplate.

Instrumentation-related complications of lumbar degenerative disc diseases treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Objective:To analyze the instrumentation-related complications of patients with lumbar degenerative disc diseases(LDD)who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(MISTLIF)and to discuss the potential strategy for the control of these complications.Methods:A total of 87 patients with LDD were treated with the MIS-TLIF procedure.Complications,including malposition or breakage of guide pin,percutaneous pedicle screw(PPS)or cages,neurological deficit,and superior-level facet joint violations,were determined during and after the surgery.Computed tomography(CT)was used to evaluate the PPS accuracy and the superior-level facet joint violations.Results:A total of 386 PPSs were used.During the surgery,3(0.8%)guide pin and 1(0.3%)PPS perforated the anterior wall of the vertebral body,respectively.One(0.3%)PPS was pulled out during the reduction of slip.Malposition of the cages occurred in 6(1.6%)PPSs.These were all adjusted accordingly during the surgery.All the patients received>2 years of follow-up.No loosening or breakage of PPS and cage was observed,but CT showed 27(7.0%)PPSs misplaced.No neurological deficit related to misplaced PPS was observed.The total facet joint violation(FJV)rate was 36.2%,with grade 2 and grade 3 violations is 21(12.1%)and 6(3.4%),respectively.Conclusion:MIS-TLIF has similar instrumentation-related complications with open TLIF.Accurate preoperative evaluation and improved surgical techniques can effectively reduce these instrumentation-related complications.

机器人导航内镜下经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的探讨应用机器人导航内镜下经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法将98例腰椎间盘突出症患者根据治疗方法不同分为观察组(32例,采用机器人导航内镜下经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗)与对照组(66例,采用后路腰椎椎间融合术治疗)。记录手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间及并发症发生情况,采用疼痛VAS评分评价疼痛改善情况,采用ODI评分评价脊柱功能。结果患者均获得随访,时间12~22个月。手术时间观察组长于对照组(P<0.01)。术中出血量、术后引流量及住院时间观察组均少(短)于对照组(P<0.01)。两组并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组术后1周及1、3、6、12个月疼痛VAS评分、ODI均较术前降低(P<0.05);观察组均低于对照组(P<0.01)。结论采用机器人导航内镜下经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗腰椎间盘突出症创伤小,疼痛改善情况好,脊柱功能恢复快。

显微镜辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗单节段腰椎滑脱症

目的探讨显微镜辅助经Quadrant通道结合经皮椎弓根钉固定行微创小切口经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗单节段腰椎退行性滑脱症的疗效。方法回顾性分析2018年4月至2021年3月行椎体间融合术治疗单节段腰椎退行性滑脱症患者的临床资料,其中采用开放经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)治疗患者41例(开放组),经Wiltse入路Quadrant通道直视下TLIF治疗患者25例(微创组),显微镜下减压并采用经皮椎弓根钉TLIF治疗患者38例(显微组)。记录3组患者手术时间、术中出血量、X线透视次数、引流量、术后2天和7天切口周围疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、并发症情况,术后CT检查评估椎弓根钉置钉准确率,记录术前及术后6个月、24个月日本骨科协会(JOA)评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI),末次随访时采用改良MacNab标准评价临床疗效。结果所有手术均顺利完成。显微组术中出血量、引流量、术后2天和7天切口周围疼痛VAS评分均小于微创组和开放组(P<0.05),椎弓根钉置钉准确率高于微创组和开放组(P<0.05),但术中X线透视次数高于微创组和开放组(P<0.05)。开放组发生术后切口浅表软组织感染1例,疑似感染1例,脑脊液漏1例;微创组出现术后短暂性神经症状2例。3组术后6个月、24个月JOA评分和ODI评分均较术前明显改善(P<0.05),3组间比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。术后6个月和24个月融合率3组间比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。按改良MacNab标准,3组患者疗效优良率无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论显微镜辅助通道下MIS-TLIF治疗单节段腰椎退行性滑脱症,术中出血少、切口疼痛感小、并发症少,采用经皮椎弓根钉置钉准确率高,融合率、疗效优良率与开放手术一致,临床疗效好。

全内镜与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床效果对比

目的:比较全内镜经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(FE-TLIF)和微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MI-TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)的临床效果和安全性。方法:前瞻性将2020年1月—2022年10月在百色市人民医院因LDD接受TLIF治疗的患者60例,按随机数字表法分为FE-TLIF组(接受FE-TLIF治疗)和MI-TLIF组(接受MI-TLIF治疗),每组30例。比较两组的围手术期指标、术前和术后3个月疼痛视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分与Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分、术后6个月及1年椎体间融合情况。结果:两组手术时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。FE-TLIF组术中透视次数多于MI-TLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。FE-TLIF组术中出血量少于MI-TLIF组,术后卧床时间、住院时间均短于MI-TLIF组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者术后VAS评分及ODI评分与术前比较均明显降低,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后6个月及1年两组椎体间融合情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组术后并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:FE-TLIF与MI-TLIF在术后疼痛缓解、功能恢复、融合率方面显示出了相似的结果,但FE-TLIF在降低术中出血量,缩短术后卧床时间、住院时间上有更大优势。

内镜、微创和开放式经椎间孔椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的效果比较

目的比较经椎间孔内镜腰椎椎间融合术(Endo-LIF)、微创腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-TLIF)和开放腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)的临床疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2023年1月在百色市人民医院因LDD接受经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术就诊的150例患者临床资料,按手术方式分为Endo-LIF组、MIS-TLIF组、PLIF组三组,每组各50例。比较患者手术时间、透视次数、术中失血量、住院时间、并发症以及术前和术后3个月的视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评分、椎间隙高度指数、病变节段活动度(ROM)。结果PLIF组的手术时间长于Endo-LIF组和MIS-TLIF组,术中透视次数少于Endo-LIF组和MIS-TLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Endo-LIF组和MIS-TLIF组的手术时间、术中透视次数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。患者术中出血量Endo-LIF组少于MIS-TLIF组及PLIF组,MIS-TLIF组少于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);患者术后卧床时间和住院时间Endo-LIF组短于MIS-TLIF组及PLIF组,MIS-TLIF组短于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。三组患者满意度比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Endo-LIF组满意度高于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.017)。三组患者术后3个月VAS及ODI评分低于手术前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。三组患者并发症发生率、椎间隙高度指数、ROM比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论Endo-LIF、MIS-TLI、PLIF三种手术方法术后3个月的预后结果相似,PLIF术中透视次数最少,Endo-LIF创伤较小,在降低术中出血,缩短术后卧床时间和住院时间方面优势明显,术后恢复速度较快,适合临床推广。

单侧双通道内镜下(UBE-TLIF)与微创经椎间孔腰椎融合术(MIS-TLIF)治疗退变性腰椎椎管狭窄症的疗效比较

目的 比较单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbodyfusion,UBE-TLIF)与微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术(minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF)治疗单节段退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2021年1月至2021年12月成都中医药大学附属医院符合纳入标准的68例单节段退行性腰椎椎管狭窄症患者的临床资料,按手术方式分为UBE-TLIF组(27例)与MIS-TLIF组(41例)。对比两组患者的手术相关指标(手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、术后住院天数、并发症发生率等);实验室检查结果[全血C反应蛋白(C-reactive protein, CRP)、血清磷酸肌酸激酶(creatine kinase, CK)]及临床疗效评价[腰痛及下肢疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index, ODI)、改良MacNab标准评价优良率、Brantigan标准评价椎间融合率]等。结果 68例患者均获得随访,随访时间12~20个月。与MIS-TLIF组相比,UBE-TLIF组患者的手术时间、住院时间更长,但术中出血量、术后引流量更短(P<0.05)。实验室检查方面:术前两组实验室检查差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后3 d UBE-TLIF组全血C反应蛋白含量较MIS-TLIF组低(P<0.05);术后1、3 dUBE-TLIF组血清磷酸肌酸激酶水平均低于MIS-TLIF组(P<0.05)。临床疗效评价:术前两组间患者腰痛及下肢疼痛视觉模拟评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后各时间点上述评分均较术前显著下降(P<0.05);组间比较发现各组术后3 d、1个月、6个月、12个月的腰痛及下肢疼痛视觉模拟评分,术后3、12个月Oswestry功能障碍指数,末次随访优良率,椎间融合率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。并发症方面:UBE-TLIF组无并发症发生,MIS-TLIF组发生并发症2例,包括术后切口感染1例及术后下肢麻木1例,两组间并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 UBE-TLIF手术方式可达到与MIS-TLIF手术方式相似的术后腰痛疼痛评分、腿疼痛评分、功能障碍指数,且较MIS-TLIF肌肉损伤释放的CK更少、组织出血量更少、术后恢复更快。

Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor versus open surgery： a prospective randomized clinical trial

In recent years, a variety of minimally invasive lumbar surgery techniques have achieved desirable efficacy, but some dispute remains regarding the advantages over open surgery. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor with open surgery in terms of perioperative factors, postoperative back muscle function, and 24-month postoperative follow-up results. Methods From September 2006 to June 2008, patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spine disease who were not responsive to conservative treatment were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized to undergo either minimally invasive surgery （MIS, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via MAST Quadrant retractor, 41 cases） or open surgery （improved transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 38 cases）. Results The MIS group had longer intraoperative fluoroscopy time than the open surgery group, and the open surgery group had significantly increased postoperative drainage volume and significantly prolonged postoperative recovery time compared with the MIS group （P 〈0.05 for all）. MRI scanning showed that the T2 relaxation time in the multifidus muscle was significantly shorter in the MIS group than in the open surgery group at 3 months after surgery （P 〈0.01）. Surface electromyography of the sacrospinalis muscle showed that the average discharge amplitude and frequency were significantly higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group （P 〈0.01）. The Oswestry disability index and visual analog scale scores were better at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively than preoperatively in both groups. Both groups of patients met the imaging convergence criteria at the last follow-up. Conclusions MIS can effectively reduce sacrospinalis muscle injury compared with open surgery, which is conducive to early functional recovery. In the short term, MIS is superior to open surgery, but in the long term there is no significant difference between the two procedures.

Quadrant通道下单侧后路腰椎椎体间融合术与传统开放术治疗退行性腰椎疾病的疗效比较

目的 探讨Quadrant通道下单侧后路腰椎椎体间融合术与传统开放术治疗退行性腰椎疾病的价值。方法 选取2019年1月至2023年6月我院外科治疗的退行性腰椎疾病患者100例,通过随机数字表法分为两组。观察组(50例)实施Quadrant通道下单侧后路腰椎椎体间融合术进行治疗,对照组(50例)实施常规开放手术治疗,比较两组治疗效果。结果 相比较对照组,观察组手术时间长、切口长度短、术中出血量小、术后引流量小、术后下地时间短、术后住院时间短(P <0.05),术后1、2、3d的疼痛评分低(P <0.05),术后2、4、6周的Oswestry功能障碍指数低(P <0.05),末次随访MacNab分级的优良率高(P <0.05)。结论 Quadrant通道下单侧后路腰椎椎体间融合术治疗退行性腰椎疾病效果十分显著,术后疼痛少,恢复快,术后功能障碍改善良好,具有较好的应用价值。

Q⁃TLIF技术的临床应用与展望

进入21世纪以来,腰椎微创技术在全球范围内应用广泛,腰椎融合技术层出不穷,包括前路腰椎椎间孔融合术、斜外侧腰椎椎间融合术、微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术、极外侧椎体间融合术、脊柱内镜下经后路椎板间入路腰椎椎体间融合术(Endo⁃P/TLIF)、单边双通道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术(UBELIF)、V形双通道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术(VBELIF)等,其中Endo⁃P/TLIF、UBELIF、VBELIF是近年来较为热门的后外侧入路微创腰椎椎间融合术式。然而,目前所有术式均无法实现在椎间盘内直接进行椎间盘处理、植骨床准备和融合器植入,因此无法避免这些操作所致的神经根损伤风险。本研究团队研发一套经皮腰椎融合器械,可实现直接Kambin三角撑开、直接椎间隙撑开、直接椎间盘切除、直接植骨床处理、直接植骨及植入融合器这些关键手术步骤。基于经皮腰椎融合器械的5个“直接”优势,提出一个创新术式——快速经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术。

脊柱微创通道镜系统辅助椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床效果观察

目的探讨脊柱微创通道镜系统辅助椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)对腰椎退行性疾病患者脊髓功能及血清P物质(SP)、前列腺素E2(PGE2)水平的影响。方法选取51例腰椎退行性疾病患者,按照入院次序单双号法分为A组(n=25)及B组(n=26)。A组行脊柱微创通道镜系统辅助TLIF术治疗,B组行常规TLIF术治疗。比较两组手术指标,腰腿部疼痛与功能障碍状况,脊髓功能,血清P物质(SP)、前列腺素E2(PGE2)水平。结果A组术中失血量、术后引流量均少于B组,下床活动时间短于B组(P<0.05);术后4周两组腰腿部视觉模拟评分法(VAS)与Oswestry障碍指数(ODI)评分均较术前均明显改善(P<0.05);术后7 d两组各项脊髓功能指标较术前均明显改善,且A组改善幅度优于B组(P<0.05);术后3 d A组血清SP水平高于B组,而血清PGE2水平低于B组(P<0.05)。结论脊柱微创通道镜系统辅助TLIF术可显著改善腰椎退行性疾病患者脊髓功能以及疼痛介质水平。

椎间融合与双侧经椎弓根经椎间盘螺钉置入后腰椎生物力学的有限元分析

背景:腰椎经椎弓根经椎间盘螺钉是一种新的微创脊柱内固定技术,与传统双侧椎弓根螺钉固定相比,单侧只需1枚螺钉固定1个节段,具有经济微创、操作便捷等优点。但目前探讨应用双侧经椎弓根经椎间盘螺钉联合改良经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合(transforaminal lumbar interbodyfusion,TLIF)术式的研究仍很少见。目的:通过建立改良TLIF无内固定(cage alone)、改良TLIF联合双侧椎弓根螺钉内固定(cage+BPS)和改良TLIF联合双侧经椎弓根经椎间盘螺钉内固定(cage+BTPTDS)3种有限元模型,评估改良TILF联合不同内固定对椎间融合器(cage)、内固定、椎间盘、下终板的应力分布及腰椎活动度的影响。方法:采集成人腰椎薄层CT扫描图像,通过Mimics、Geomagic和SolidWorks软件建立3种有限元模型:cage alone模型、cage+BPS模型和cage+BTPTDS模型。采用ANSYS Workbench模拟施加人体前屈、后伸、左侧弯、右侧弯、左侧旋转、右侧旋转6种不同运动载荷,计算3种模型cage及内固定、下终板、椎间盘应力分布和腰椎活动度的差异,比较3种不同手术方案对腰椎生物力学效应的影响。结果与结论:①成功构建了3种有限元模型:cage alone、cage+BPS和cage+BTPTDS;②cage+BTPTDS模型在前屈、侧弯运动载荷下,其cage最大应力小于cage alone模型,稍大于cage+BPS模型;在后伸运动载荷下,cage+BPS模型的cage最大应力明显小于其余两种模型;在旋转载荷下,cage+BTPTDS模型与cage+BPS模型cage最大应力接近,小于cage alone模型;③在屈伸载荷下,cage+BTPTDS模型内固定最大应力明显大于cage+BPS模型;在侧弯载荷下,cage+BTPTDS模型与cage+BPS模型二者内固定最大应力接近;而在旋转载荷下,cage+BTPTDS模型内固定最大应力则小于cage+BPS模型;④cage+BPS模型的融合节段下终板最大应力介于另外两者之间;⑤cage+BTPTDS模型在前屈、后伸、侧弯、旋转工况下,其活动度与cage alone模型差异不大;⑥结果表明,改良TLIF联合双侧经椎弓根经椎间盘螺钉内固定既能够带来良好的稳定性,又能够保证腰椎整体活动度,具有良好的生物力学效应。

倾向性评分匹配两种腰椎融合方案治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病

背景:国内外近年来广泛使用单侧双通道内镜技术行椎间融合,但其与微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎体间融合(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效对比仍较少,单侧双通道内镜技术是否是一种安全、高效的腰椎融合术式有待进一步论证。目的:对比单侧双通道内镜腰椎椎间融合(unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion,UBE-LIF)与MIS-TLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效,探讨更高效的腰椎融合术式。方法:纳入桂林医学院附属医院2020年10月至2022年2月收治的单节段腰椎退行性疾病患者,其中行UBE-LIF的患者35例,行MIS-TLIF的患者286例,采用倾向性评分匹配消除混杂因素,选取性别、年龄、疾病类型、手术节段4个协变量进行1∶1(卡钳值为0.01)匹配,匹配后两组各29例患者纳入研究。比较两组患者围术期中手术时间、血红蛋白丢失量、住院时间;采用目测类比和功能障碍指数对两组患者术前、术后1个月、术后半年、术后1年的功能恢复效果进行评价;末次随访采用改良MacNab标准评定两组疗效的优良率,采用Lenke腰椎骨性融合动态X射线片评估两组的植骨融合情况。结果与结论:①在手术时间上MIS-TLIF组短于UBE-LIF组(P<0.05),MIS-TLIF组术中血红蛋白丢失量高于UBE-LIF组、住院时间长于UBE-LIF组,差异有显著性意义(P<0.05);②两组患者术后1个月、术后半年、术后1年的腰痛目测类比评分、腿痛目测类比评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数相较于术前均有显著降低(P<0.05);除了术后1个月腰痛目测类比评分,在以上各时间节点随访两组腰痛、腿痛目测类比评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数无明显差异(P>0.05);③末次随访改良MacNab标准疗效评定结果显示,UBE-LIF组优良率为93%(27/29);MIS-TLIF组优良率为90%(26/29),两组差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);④Lenke腰椎骨性融合动态X射线片评估系统进行评定后,UBE-LIF组A级21例,B级5例,C级3例,融合率为90%;MIS-TLIF组A级20例,B级5例,C级4例,融合率为86%,两组差异无显著性意义(P>0.05);⑤提示UBE-LIF与MIS-TLIF两种术式治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效相近,均具有创伤小、出血少、住院时间短的优点;此外,UBE-LIF术后早期腰痛相对较轻,学习曲线相对平缓,虽然UBE-LIF组的手术时间较MIS-TLIF长,仍不失为一张安全、高效的术式。

单侧双通道内镜下腰椎融合术与微创经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病临床疗效比较的Meta分析

目的:系统评价单侧双通道内镜下腰椎融合术(unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion,ULIF)与微创经椎间孔入路腰椎融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病(lumbar degenerative disease,LDD)的临床疗效。方法:系统检索中国知网(CNKI)、维普(VIP)、万方数据(WanFang)、中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)、PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、Web of Science等8个中英文数据库中关于ULIF与MIS-TLIF治疗LDD的临床对照研究文献,检索时限为自数据库建库至2023年9月,采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(Newcastle-Ottawa scale,NOS)对纳入的研究进行质量评价。提取手术时间、手术出血量、住院时间、疼痛视觉模拟(visual analog scale,VAS)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disability index,ODI)、并发症发生率、椎间盘高度、融合率等指标,应用RevMan 5.4.1软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入11篇文献,均为队列研究,NOS评价均为中高质量。共有800例患者,其中ULIF组380例,MIS-TLIF组420例。Meta分析结果显示,ULIF手术组腰部VAS(术后1~3个月)[MD=-0.43,95%CI(-0.70,-0.15)]、腰部VAS(末次随访>一年)[MD=-0.09,95%CI(-0.18,-0.00)]、ODI(术后1~3个月)[MD=-1.37,95%CI(-2.46,-0.28)]、住院时间[WMD=-0.75,95%CI(-1.33,-0.17)]、术中出血[MD=-78.72,95%CI(-113.20,-44.23)]等方面优于MIS-TILF手术组,MIS-TLIF手术组在手术时间[MD=30.28,95%CI(13.86,46.71)]上优于UILF手术组;二者在腿部VAS评分(术后1~3个月)[MD=-0.12,95%CI(-0.30,0.06)]、腿部VAS评分(末次随访>1年)[MD=-0.04,95%CI(-0.15,0.07)]、ODI(末次随访>1年)[MD=-0.46,95%CI(-1.02,0.11)]、腰椎前突角[MD=0.39,95%CI(-1.12,1.90)]、椎间盘高度[MD=0.03,95%CI(-0.24,0.30)]、融合率[MD=0.97,95%CI(0.92,1.03)]及并发症发生率[MD=0.82,95%CI(0.45,1.48)]等方面无明显差异。结论:相较于MIS-TLIF,ULIF在改善腰痛症状和早期恢复功能、减少术中出血、缩短住院时间等方面有优势,具有手术创伤小、恢复快的优势。二者在远期疗效、并发症以及融合率方面无明显差异。