Comparison of mMO-TLIF via Midline Incision Versus MIS-TLIF via Wiltse Approach in Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

Background: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of modified mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (mMO-TLIF) via posterior midline incision for "targeted limited dissection" versus minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) via Wiltse approach in lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: A total of 60 consecutive patients in our center from January 2019 to March 2020 were enrolled, including 30 patients who were treated with mMO-TLIF via posterior midline incision and 30 treated with MIS-TLIF through the Wiltse approach. Perioperative parameters were recorded. The questionnaires of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) were conducted before the operation and after the operation (3 days, 1 week, and 2 years). CT and MRI radiological outcomes were evaluated before the operation and at a 2-year follow-up. Results: There were no significant differences in the general data, gender, age, and BMI between the two groups. All patients were successfully operated without intraoperative complications. There were significant differences between the two groups in the operation time (p < 0.001) and intraoperative bleeding (p < 0.05). There was no difference in ODI and VAS scores between groups pre- and post-operatively, but they were both significantly improved compared to those before the operation (p < 0.01). At a 2-year follow-up, the paraspinal muscle atrophy and fat infiltration were increased comparing to pre-operation, but the difference was also not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In addition, both the two groups' fusion rates were more than 90% at a 2-year follow-up, however, no difference was detected between the two groups. Conclusion: mMO-TLIF via midline incision for "targeted limited dissection" could achieve similar clinical and radiological outcomes as MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.

Placement of 2 cages using navigation-guided biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: illustrative case.

BACKGROUND: In recent developments, full endoscopic and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery have emerged to aid the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. Yet, both approaches present a challenge due to limited space for cage insertion, potentially leading to complications such as cage subsidence or nonfusion in long-term assessments. Utilizing double cages may mitigate these concerns. This paper presents a unique case in which a patient successfully underwent computed tomography (CT) navigation-guided UBE-TLIF with 2 converging cages, highlighting the potential benefits and feasibility of this innovative approach. OBSERVATIONS: A 59-year-old female diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis at the L4-5 level underwent a UBE-TLIF. The operation is detailed step by step and supported by illustrative figures and surgical videos. Postsurgery results revealed a significant improvement in the patient's condition, with the visual analog scale score decreasing from 7 to 3 on the first day, leading to a satisfaction rate of 90% at the last follow-up. LESSONS: Utilizing endoscopic visualization complemented by contrast medium has substantially elevated the quality of disc preparation. From their observations, the authors affirm that the integration of intraoperative CT navigation systems significantly augments safety and pinpoint accuracy in UBE-TLIF procedures. The strategy of employing 2 converging cages through a unilateral technique stands as a practical solution, potentially optimizing the fusion outcomes of UBE-TLIF surgery. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE23512.

Cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and/or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis: a 5-year Quality Outcomes Database study.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and/or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), referred to as "PLIF/TLIF," is a commonly performed operation for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Its long-term cost-effectiveness has not been well described. The aim of this study was to determine the 5-year cost-effectiveness of PLIF/TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis using prospective data collected from the multicenter Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the prospective, multicenter QOD grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis module were included if they underwent single-stage PLIF/TLIF. EQ-5D scores at baseline, 3 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 60 months were used to calculate gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with surgery relative to preoperative baseline. Healthcare-related costs associated with the index surgery and related reoperations were calculated using Medicare reimbursement-based cost estimates and validated using price transparency diagnosis-related group (DRG) charges and Medicare charge-to-cost ratios (CCRs). Cost per QALY gained over 60 months postoperatively was assessed. RESULTS: Across 12 surgical centers, 385 patients were identified. The mean patient age was 60.2 (95% CI 59.1-61.3) years, and 38% of patients were male. The reoperation rate was 5.7%. DRG 460 cost estimates were stable between our Medicare reimbursement-based models and the CCR-based model, validating the focus on Medicare reimbursement. Across the entire cohort, the mean QALY gain at 60 months postoperatively was 1.07 (95% CI 0.97-1.18), and the mean cost of PLIF/TLIF was $31,634. PLIF/TLIF was associated with a mean 60-month cost per QALY gained of $29,511. Among patients who did not undergo reoperation (n = 363), the mean 60-month QALY gain was 1.10 (95% CI 0.99-1.20), and cost per QALY gained was $27,591. Among those who underwent reoperation (n = 22), the mean 60-month QALY gain was 0.68 (95% CI 0.21-1.15), and the cost per QALY gained was $80,580. CONCLUSIONS: PLIF/TLIF for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis was associated with a mean 60-month cost per QALY gained of $29,511 with Medicare fees. This is far below the well-established societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, suggesting long-term cost-effectiveness. PLIF/TLIF remains cost-effective for patients who undergo reoperation.

Impact of preoperative age-adjusted sagittal imbalance on radiographic and clinical outcomes following 1-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.

Adhesive surface electrodes versus needle-based neuromonitoring in lumbar spinal surgery.

Background: The relative safety and more widespread utility of an adhesive surface electrode-based neuromonitoring (ABM) system may reduce the time and cost of traditional needle-based neuromonitoring (NBM). Methods: This retrospective cohort review included one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures (2019-2023). The primary variables studied included were time (in minutes) from patient entry into the operating room (OR) to incision, time from patient entry into the OR to closure, and time from incision to closure. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to compare the outcomes between the ABM (31 patients) and NBM (51 patients) modalities. Results: We found no significant differences in the time from patient entry into the OR to incision (ABM: 71.8, NBM: 70.3, P = 0.70), time from patient entry into the OR to closure (ABM: 284.2, NBM: 301.7, P = 0.27), or time from incision to closure (ABM: 212.4, NBM: 231.4, P = 0.17) between the two groups. Further, no patients from either group required reoperation for mal-positioned instrumentation, and none sustained a new postoperative neurological deficit. The ABM approach did, however, allow for a reduction in neurophysiologist-workforce and neuromonitoring costs. Conclusion: The introduction of the ABM system did not lower surgical time but did demonstrate similar efficacy and clinical outcomes, with reduced clinical invasiveness, neurophysiologist-associated workforce, and overall neuromonitoring cost compared to NBM.

Clinical Outcomes of the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique Among Patients With Low Back Pain Showing Type 1 Modic Changes on MRI.

Introduction The unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) signifies a different surgical method, circumventing both the anterior method and the method via the spinal canal. Due to the shortage of literature available for clinical outcomes and consequences post-TLIF, we undertook the current study to assess the TLIF technique's clinical outcomes among patients with low back pain showing type 1 Modic changes on MRI. Material and methods A cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2019 and March 2021. All patients included in the study had Modic type 1 change and disabling low back pain as the main complaint and/or leg pain. Data were collected on age, body mass index (BMI), gender, and other risk factors like diabetes mellitus, steroid use, and smoking. Pain intensity was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) before and after surgery. A radiographic evaluation was also performed. Pre and post-operative pain scores and differences in disc height were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results The mean length of stay in the hospital was 4.3±1.61. The mean pre-operative lower back pain score was 8.78±0.79. The mean post-operative score was substantially lowered to 0.83±0.7. There was a significant difference between pre- and post-operative lumbar pain (p-value < 0.001). There was a significant increase in mean disc height from pre-operative (7.14 mm) to post-operative (11.02 mm) and also at one year (10.21 mm) with a p-value of <0.001. Of the patients, 82.14% did not have any complications, and 3.57% each had either delayed wound healing without any infection or transient post-operative radiculopathy that improved in six weeks. Conclusion TLIF procedure can be considered safe to provide anterior and posterior column support by adopting a unilateral posterior approach. The outcomes were favorable in terms of no prolonged length of stay, less blood loss, no mortality, reduction in the severity of pain, and improvement in disc height. However, the appropriate selection of patients for this technique is pivotal for the success of the procedure.

Transdural retrieval of retropulsed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cages.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) are performed for various lumbar spine pathologies. Posterior migration of an interbody cage is a complication that may result in neurologic injury and require reoperation. Sparse information exists regarding the safety and efficacy of a transdural approach for cage retrieval. We describe a surgical technique, in which centrally retropulsed cages were safely retrieved transdurally. A patient with prior L3-S1 posterior lumbar fusion and L4-S1 TLIFs presented with radiculopathy and weakness in dorsiflexion. Imaging revealed posterior central migration of TLIF cages causing compression of the traversing L5 nerve root. Cages were removed transdurally; the correction was performed with an all-posterior T10-pelvis fusion. Aside from temporary weakness in right-sided dorsiflexion, the patient experienced complete resolution in their radiculopathy and strength returned to its presurgical state by 3 months. The transdural approach for interbody removal can be safely performed and should be a tool in the spine surgeon's armamentarium.

Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails and cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: As an emerging technology in robot-assisted (RA) surgery, the potential benefits of its application in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) lack substantial support from current evidence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether the RA TLIF is superior to FG TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies comparing RA versus FG TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases through July 2022 by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, VIP, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the references of published review articles. Both cohort studies (CSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Evaluation criteria included the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement, proximal facet joint violation (FJV), radiation exposure, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and surgical revision. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I Tool. Random-effects models were used, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed as the effect measure. We conducted subgroup analyses based on surgical type, the specific robot system used, and the study design. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Our search identified 539 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that RA had 1.03-folds higher "clinically acceptable" accuracy than FG (RR: 1.0382, 95% CI: 1.0273-1.0493). And RA had 1.12-folds higher "perfect" accuracy than FG group (RR: 1.1167, 95% CI: 1.0726-1.1626). In the case of proximal FJV, our results indicate a 74% reduction in occurrences for patients undergoing RA pedicle screw placement compared to those in the FG group (RR: 0.2606, 95%CI: 0.2063- 0.3293). Seventeen CSs and two RCTs reported the duration of time. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference between RA and FG group (SMD: 0.1111, 95%CI: -0.391-0.6131), but the results of RCTs suggest that the patients who underwent RA-TLIF need more surgery time than FG (SMD: 3.7213, 95%CI: 3.0756-4.3669). Sixteen CSs and two RCTs reported the EBL. The results suggest that the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer EBL than FG group (CSs: SMD: -1.9151, 95%CI: -3.1265-0.7036, RCTs: SMD: -5.9010, 95%CI: -8.7238-3.0782). For radiation exposure, the results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in radiation time between RA and FG group (SMD: -0.5256, 95%CI: -1.4357-0.3845), but the patients who underwent RA pedicle screw placement had fewer radiation dose than FG group (SMD: -2.2682, 95%CI: -3.1953-1.3411). And four CSs and one RCT reported the number of revision case. The results of CSs suggest that there is no significant difference in the number of revision case between RA and FG group (RR: 0.4087,95% CI 0.1592-1.0495). Our findings are limited by the residual heterogeneity of the included studies, which may limit the interpretation of the results. CONCLUSION: In TLIF, RA technology exhibits enhanced precision in pedicle screw placement when compared to FG methods. This accuracy contributes to advantages such as the protection of adjacent facet joints and reductions in intraoperative radiation dosage and blood loss. However, the longer preoperative preparation time associated with RA procedures results in comparable surgical duration and radiation time to FG techniques. Presently, FG screw placement remains the predominant approach, with clinical surgeons possessing greater proficiency in its application. Consequently, the integration of RA into TLIF surgery may not be considered the optimal choice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023441600.

Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic single-level spondylolisthesis (LIFT): a multicentre controlled, patient blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial.

Background: The effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with single-level spondylolisthesis has not been substantiated. To address the evidence gap, a well-powered randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of TLIF with PLIF, entitled the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT), was conducted. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial among five Dutch hospitals, 161 patients were randomly allocated to either TLIF or PLIF (1:1), stratified according to study site. Patients and statisticians were blinded for group assignment. All patients were over 18 years old with symptomatic single-level degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and eligible for lumbar interbody fusion surgery through a posterior approach. The primary outcome was change in disability measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from preoperative to one year postoperative. The non-inferiority limit was set to 7.0 points based on the MCID of ODI. Secondary outcomes were change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) assessed with EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), as well as back and leg pain (Numerical rating scale, NRS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016), Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT): A randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Findings: Patients were included between August 2017 and November 2020. The total study population was 161 patients. Total loss-to-follow-up after one year was 16 patients. Per-protocol analysis included 66 patients in each group. In the TLIF group (mean age 61.6, 36 females), ODI improved from 46.7 to 20.7, whereas in the PLIF group (mean age 61.9, 41 females), it improved from 46.0 to 24.9. This difference (-4.9, 90% CI -12.2 to +2.4) did not reach the non-inferiority limit of 7.0 points in ODI. A significant difference in the secondary outcome measurement, QALY (SF-36), was observed in favor of TLIF (P < 0.05). However, this was not clinically relevant. No difference was found for all other secondary outcome measurements; PROMs (EQ-5D, NRS leg/back, HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative and postoperative complications. Interpretation: For patients with single-level spondylolisthesis, TLIF is non-inferior to PLIF in terms of clinical effectiveness. Disability (measured with ODI) did not differ over time between groups. Funding: No funding was received for this trial.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion subsidence: computed tomography analysis of incidence, associated risk factors, and impact on outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to 1) define the incidence of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) interbody subsidence; 2) determine the relative importance of preoperative and intraoperative patient- and instrumentation-specific risk factors predictive of postoperative subsidence using CT-based assessment; and 3) determine the impact of TLIF subsidence on postoperative complications and fusion rates. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF for lumbar degenerative conditions at a multi-institutional academic center between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients with traumatic injury, infection, malignancy, previous fusion at the index level, combined anterior-posterior procedures, surgery with greater than two TLIF levels, or incomplete follow-up were excluded. Interbody subsidence at the superior and inferior endplates of each TLIF level was directly measured on the endplate-facing surface of both coronal and sagittal CT scans obtained greater than 6 months postoperatively. Patients were grouped based on the maximum subsidence at each operative level classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on previously documented < 2-mm, 2- to 4-mm, and ≥ 4-mm thresholds, respectively. Univariate and regression analyses compared patient demographics, medical comorbidities, preoperative bone quality, surgical factors including interbody cage parameters, and fusion and complication rates across subsidence groups. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients with 85 unique fusion levels met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 28% of levels exhibited moderate subsidence and 35% showed severe subsidence after TLIF with no significant difference in the superior and inferior endplate subsidence. Moderate (≥ 2-mm) and severe (≥ 4-mm) subsidence were significantly associated with decreases in cage surface area and Taillard index as well as interbody cages with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) material and sawtooth surface geometry. Severe subsidence was also significantly associated with taller preoperative disc spaces, decreased vertebral Hounsfield units (HU), the absence of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use, and smooth cage surfaces. Regression analysis revealed decreases in Taillard index, cage surface area, and HU, and the absence of BMP use predicted subsidence. Severe subsidence was found to be a predictor of pseudarthrosis but was not significantly associated with revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level risk factors for TLIF subsidence included decreased HU and increased preoperative disc height. Intraoperative risk factors for TLIF subsidence were decreased cage surface area, PEEK cage material, bullet cages, posterior cage positioning, smooth cage surfaces, and sawtooth surface designs. Severe subsidence predicted TLIF pseudarthrosis; however, the causality of this relationship remains unclear.

Cyclic testing of standalone ALIF versus TLIF in lumbosacral spines of low bone mineral density: an ex vivo biomechanical study.

PURPOSE: Screwed anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SALIF) alleviates the need for supplemental posterior fixation leading to reduction of perioperative morbidity. Specifically, elderly and multimorbid patients would benefit from shorter operative time and faster recovery but tend to have low bone mineral density (BMD). The current study aimed to compare loosening, defined as increase of ROM and NZ, of SALIF versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) under cyclic loading in cadaveric spines with reduced BMD. METHODS: Twelve human spines (L4-S2; 6 male 6 female donors; age 70.6 ± 19.6; trabecular BMD of L5 84.2 ± 24.4 mgHA/cm3, range 51-119 mgHA/cm3) were assigned to two groups. SALIF or TLIF were instrumented at L5/S1. Range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ) were assessed before and after axial cyclic loading (0-1150 N, 2000 cycles, 0.5 Hz) in flexion-extension (Flex-Ext), lateral bending, (LB), axial rotation (AR). RESULTS: ROM of the SALIF specimens increased significantly in all loading directions (p ≤ 0.041), except for left AR (p = 0.053), whereas for TLIF it increased significantly in left LB (p = 0.033) and Flex (p = 0.015). NZ of SALIF showed increase in Flex-Ext and LB, whereas NZ of TLIF did not increase significantly in any motion direction. CONCLUSIONS: Axial compression loading caused loosening of SALIF in Flex-Ext and LB, but not TLIF at L5/S1 in low BMD specimens. Nevertheless, Post-cyclic ROM and NZ of SALIF is comparable to TLIF. This suggests that, neither construct is optimal for the use in patients with reduced BMD.

A novel endoscope-port unit for lumbar microendoscopic surgery: a single-center case series review.

Minimally invasive spinal surgery has shown benefits not only from a clinical standpoint but also in some cost-effectiveness metrics. Microendoscopic procedures combine optical advantages of endoscopy with the preservation of bimanual surgical maneuvers that are not feasible with full percutaneous endoscopic procedures. TELIGEN is a new endoscopic platform designed to optimize these operations. Our aim was to present a retrospective review of surgical data from the first consecutive cases applying this device in our institution and describe some of its technical details. 25 patients have underwent procedures using this device at our institution to the date, with a mean follow-up of 341.7 ± 45.1 days. 17 decompression-only procedures, including microendoscopic discectomies (MED) and decompression of stenosis (MEDS), with or without foraminotomies (± MEF) and 8 microendoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (ME-TLIF) were performed. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were respectively 58.8 ± 17.4 years and 27.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Estimated blood loss (13 ± 4.8, 12.8 ± 6.98 and 76.3 ± 35.02 mL), postoperative length of hospital stay (11.2 ± 21.74, 22.1 ± 26.85 and 80.7 ± 44.60 h), operative time (130.3 ± 58.53, 121 ± 33.90 and 241.5 ± 45.27 min) and cumulative intraprocedural radiation dose (14.2 ± 6.36, 15.4 ± 12.17 and 72.8 ± 12.26 mGy) are reported in this paper for MED ± MEF, MEDS ± MEF and ME-TLIF, respectively. TELIGEN affords an expanded surgical field of view with unique engineered benefits that provide a promissing platform to enhance minimally invasive spine surgery.

Are the facet joint parameters risk factors for cage subsidence after TLIF in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis?

PURPOSE: To assess whether preoperative facet joint parameters in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) are risk factors for cage subsidence (CS) following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: We enrolled 112 patients with L4-5 DS who underwent TLIF and were followed up for > 1 year. Preoperative demographic characteristics, functional areas of paraspinal muscles and psoas major muscles (PS), total functional area relative to vertebral body area, functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) of PS and lumbar spine extensor muscles, normalized FCSA of PS to the vertebral body area (FCSA/VBA), lumbar indentation value, facet joint orientation, facet joint tropism (FT), cross-sectional area of the superior articular process (SAPA), intervertebral height index, vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) value, lordosis distribution index, t-scores, sagittal plane parameters, visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain, VAS for leg pain, Oswestry disability index, global alignment and proportion score and European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) were assessed. RESULTS: Postoperative CS showed significant correlations with preoperative FO(L3-4), FT (L3 and L5), SAPA(L3-5), L5-HU, FCSA/VBA(L3-4), Pre- T-score, post-6-month VAS for back pain and EQ-5D scores among other factors. According to ROC curve analysis, the optimal decision points for FO(L3-4), L3-SAPA, FCSA/VBA(L3-4), L5-HU, and Pre- T-score were 35.88°, 43.76°,114.93, 1.73, 1.55, 136, and - 2.49. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified preoperative FO, SAPA, preoperative CT, Pre- T-score and the FCSA/VBA as independent risk factors for CS after TLIF for DS. These risk factors should enable spinal surgeons to closely monitor and prevent the occurrence of CS.

A comparison of ultrasound volume navigation, O-arm navigation, and X-ray guidance for screw placement in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences between Ultrasound Volume Navigation (UVN), O-arm Navigation, and conventional X-ray fluoroscopy-guided screw placement in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgeries. METHODS: A total of 90 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF due to lumbar disc herniation from January 2022 to January 2023 were randomly assigned to the UVN group, O-arm group, and X-ray group. UVN, O-arm navigation, and X-ray guidance were used for screw placement in the respective groups, while the remaining surgical procedures followed routine MIS-TLIF protocols. Intraoperative data including average single screw placement time, total radiation dose, and average effective radiation dose per screw were recorded and calculated. On the 10th day after surgery, postoperative X-ray and CT examinations were conducted to assess screw placement accuracy and facet joint violation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in general characteristics among the three groups, ensuring comparability. Firstly, the average single screw placement time in the O-arm group was significantly shorter than that in the UVN group and X-ray group (P<0.05). Secondly, in terms of total radiation dose during surgery, for single-level MIS-TLIF, the O-arm group had a significantly higher radiation dose compared to the UVN group and X-ray group (P<0.05). However, for multi-level MIS-TLIF, the X-ray group had a significantly higher radiation dose than the O-arm group and UVN group (P<0.05). In terms of average single screw radiation dose, the O-arm group and X-ray group were similar (P>0.05), while the UVN group was significantly lower than the other two groups (P<0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found in screw placement assessment grades among the three groups (P>0.05). However, in terms of facet joint violation rate, the UVN group (10.3%) and O-arm group (10.7%) showed no significant difference (P>0.05), while the X-ray group (26.7%) was significantly higher than both groups (P<0.05). Moreover, in the UVN group, there were significant correlations between average single screw placement time and placement grade with BMI index (r = 0.637, P<0.05; r = 0.504, P<0.05), while no similar significant correlations were found in the O-arm and X-ray groups. CONCLUSION: UVN-guided screw placement in MIS-TLIF surgeries demonstrates comparable efficiency, visualization, and accuracy to O-arm navigation, while significantly reducing radiation exposure compared to both O-arm navigation and X-ray guidance. However, UVN may be influenced by factors like obesity, limiting its application.

The Impact of L4-L5 Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion on 2-Year Adjacent-level Parameters.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of L4-L5 minimally invasive surgery (MIS)- transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) on adjacent-level parameters. METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients between January 2015 and December 2019. The index- and adjacent-level segmental lordosis (SL) and disc angle (DA) were measured. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and at 3-24 months postoperatively. Factors influencing changes in adjacent-level parameters and the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 117 adult patients, averaging 65.5 years of age and slight preponderance of female (56.4%), were analyzed. L4-L5 SL decreased at 2 years (P < 0.05), but L4-L5 DA significantly increased at all timepoints (P < 0.05). While L3-L4 SL and DA significantly decreased at all timepoints (P < 0.05), L5-S1 SL decreased at 3 and 12 months (P < 0.05) and L5-S1 DA only significantly decreased at 2 years (P < 0.05). All PROs improved significantly (P < 0.0001). The ASDeg rate was 19.7% at 2.2 years. Cephalad and caudal ASDeg rates were 12.0% and 10.3%, respectively. Eight patients (6.8%) required adjacent-level reoperations, mainly at L3-L4 (6 cases). The use of expandable cage significantly reduced the odds of caudal ASDeg (OR 0.15, P = 0.037), but had no significant effect on cephalad ASDeg. CONCLUSIONS: L4-L5 MIS-TLIF had a more consistent effect on L3-L4 than L5-S1. Although adjacent-level SL and DA decreased over time, their association with ASDeg appears limited, suggesting a multifactorial etiology. L4-L5 MIS-TLIF provides demonstrable clinical benefits with lasting PRO improvements and low adjacent-level reoperations.

Effect of Tranexamic Acid on Hidden Blood Loss in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Study.

Purpose: Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) has become one of the most popular minimally invasive surgeries today. However, the issue of hidden blood loss (HBL) in this surgery has received little attention. This study aims to examine the HBL in PE-TLIF surgery and the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) on blood loss. Methods: In our research, We conducted a retrospective analysis of 300 patients who underwent PE-TLIF from September 2019 to August 2023. They were divided into 2 groups based on whether they received intravenous TXA injection before surgery. The variables compared included: demographic data, pre-and postoperative hemoglobin (HB), hematocrit (HCT), platelets (PLT), red blood cells (RBC), total blood loss (TBL), visible blood loss (VBL), HBL, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, inflammatory markers, coagulation parameters, and adverse events. Results: Regarding demographic characteristics, besides the operation time, no significant differences were observed between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the TXA group showed a significant reduction trend in TBL, HBL, and VBL (P < 0.05). On the first day after surgery, there were significant differences in prothrombin (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and D-dimer (D-D) levels between the two groups. Similarly, HCT also found similar results on the third day after surgery. No adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Research has found that there is a significant amount of HBL in patients undergoing PE-TLIF. Intravenous injection of TXA can safely and effectively reduce perioperative HBL and VBL. Additionally, compared to the control group, the TXA group shows a significant reduction in operation time.

Association between delayed ambulation and increased risk of adverse events after lumbar fusion surgery in elderly patients.

PURPOSE: The relationship between delayed ambulation (DA) and postoperative adverse events (AEs) following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in elderly patients remains elusive. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of DA on the postoperative AEs including complications, readmission and prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively established database of elderly patients (aged 65 years and older) who underwent TLIF surgery. The early ambulation (EA) group was defined as patients ambulated within 48 h after surgery, whereas the delayed ambulation (DA) group was patients ambulated at a minimum of 48 h postoperatively. The DA patients were 1:1 propensity-score matched to the EA patients based on age, gender and the number of fused segments. Univariate analysis was used to compare postoperative outcomes between the two groups, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for adverse events and DA. RESULTS: After excluding 125 patients for various reasons, 1025 patients (≤ 48 h: N = 659 and > 48 h: N = 366) were included in the final analysis. After propensity score matching, there were 326 matched patients in each group. There were no significant differences in the baseline data and the surgery-related variables between the two groups (p > 0.05). The patients in the DA group had a significant higher incidence of postoperative AEs (46.0% vs. 34.0%, p = 0.002) and longer LOS (p = 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression identified that age, operative time, diabetes, and DA were independently associated with postoperative AEs, whereas greater age, higher international normalized ratio, and intraoperative estimated blood loss were identified as independent risk factors for DA. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed ambulation was an independent risk factor for postoperative AEs after TLIF in elderly patients. Older age, increased intraoperative blood loss and worse coagulation function were associated with delayed ambulation.

Comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PCLE-LIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The clinical data of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent PCLE-LIF (experimental group) and TLIF (control group) surgery from September 2019 to September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. We collected clinical data and compared the two groups in terms of perioperative parameters, treatment response rate, inflammatory response markers, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, and functional recovery. The results showed that the treatment outcomes in the experimental group were significantly better than those in the control group. Specifically, perioperative parameters and inflammatory response markers in the experimental group were significantly better than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The overall treatment response rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the incidence of postoperative complications in the experimental group was lower than that in the control group, postoperative VAS pain scores and ODI functional scores were lower, and postoperative JOA functional scores were higher than those in the control group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). In conclusion, PCLE-LIF appears to be a promising technique with better clinical outcomes in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Restoring L4-S1 Lordosis Shape in Severe Sagittal Deformity: Impact of Correction Techniques on Alignment and Complication Profile.

BACKGROUND: Severe sagittal plane deformity with loss of L4-S1 lordosis is disabling and can be improved through various surgical techniques. However, data are limited on the differing ability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to achieve alignment goals in severely malaligned patients. METHODS: Severe adult spinal deformity patients with preoperative PI-LL >20°, L4-S1 lordosis <30°, and full body radiographs and PROMs at baseline and 6-week postoperative visit were included. Patients were grouped into ALIF (1-2 level ALIF at L4-S1), PSO (L4/L5 PSO), and TLIF (1-2 level TLIF at L4-S1). Comparative analyses were performed on demographics, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, complications, and PROMs. RESULTS: Among the 96 included patients, 40 underwent ALIF, 27 underwent PSO, and 29 underwent TLIF. At baseline, cohorts had comparable age, sex, race, Edmonton frailty scores, and radiographic spinopelvic parameters (P > 0.05). However, PSO was performed more often in revision cases (P < 0.001). Following surgery, L4-S1 lordosis correction (P = 0.001) was comparable among ALIF and PSO patients and caudal lordotic apex migration (P = 0.044) was highest among ALIF patients. PSO patients had higher intraoperative estimated blood loss (P < 0.001) and motor deficits (P = 0.049), and in-hospital ICU admission (P = 0.022) and blood products given (P = 0.004), but were otherwise comparable in terms of length of stay, blood transfusion given, and postoperative admission to rehab. Likewise, 90-day postoperative complication profiles and 6-week PROMs were comparable as well. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF can restore L4-S1 sagittal alignment as powerfully as PSO, with fewer intraoperative and in-hospital complications. When feasible, ALIF is a suitable alternative to PSO and likely superior to TLIF for correcting L4-S1 lordosis among patients with severe sagittal malalignment.

Accelerated fusion dynamics by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, particularly in osteoporotic conditions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Early fusion is crucial in interbody procedures to minimize mechanical complications resulting from delayed union, especially for patients with osteoporosis. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are used in spinal fusion procedures; however, limited evaluation exists regarding time-to-fusion for BMP use, particularly in patients with osteoporosis. PURPOSE: To evaluate the difference in time-to-fusion after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery between recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) usage and nonusage groups according to bone density. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-center cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study enrolled 132 patients (mean age, 65.25±8.66; male patients, 40.9%) who underwent single-level TLIF for degenerative disorders between February 2012 and December 2021, with pre and postoperative computed tomography (CT). OUTCOME MEASURE: The interbody fusion mass and bone graft status on postoperative CT scans was obtained annually, and time-to-fusion was recorded for each patient. METHODS: The patients were divided into 2 groups based on rhBMP-2 use during the interbody fusion procedure. Patients were further divided into osteoporosis, osteopenia, and normal groups based on preoperative L1 vertebral body attenuation values, using cutoffs of 90 and 120 Hounsfield units. It was strictly defined that fusion is considered complete when a trabecular bone bridge was formed, and therefore, the time-to-fusion was measured in years. Time-to-fusion was statistically compared between BMP group and non-BMP groups, followed by further comparison according to bone density. RESULTS: The time-to-fusion differed significantly between BMP and non-BMP groups, with half of the patients achieving fusion within 2.5 years in the BMP group compared with 4 years in the non-BMP group (p<.001). The fusion rate varied based on bone density, with the maximum difference observed in the osteoporosis group, when half of the patients achieved fusion within 3 years in the BMP group compared to 5 years in the non-BMP group (p<.001). Subgroup analysis was conducted, revealing no significant associations between time-to-fusion and factors known to influence the fusion process, including age, gender, medical history, smoking and alcohol use, and medication history, except for rh-BMP2 use and bone density. CONCLUSIONS: RhBMP-2 usage significantly reduced time-to-fusion in single-level TLIF, especially in patients with osteoporosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.