The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Approach Spinal Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: The Current Evidence from Prospective Comparative Studies.

Purpose. To investigate the evidence of minimally invasive (MI) versus open (OP) posterior lumbar fusion in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis from current prospective literatures. Methods. The electronic literature database of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library was searched at April 2016. The data of operative time, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) of both lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), SF-36 PCS (physical component scores) and SF-36 MCS (mental component scores), complications, fusion rate, and secondary surgery were extracted and analyzed by STATA 12.0 software. Results. Five nonrandom prospective comparative studies were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the MI group had a significantly longer operative time than OP group, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. No significant difference was found in back pain, leg pain, ODI, SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, complications, fusion rate, and secondary surgery between MI and OP groups. Conclusion. The prospective evidence suggested that MI posterior fusion for spondylolisthesis had less EBL and hospital stay than OP fusion; however it took more operative time. Both MI and OP fusion had similar results in pain and functional outcomes, complication, fusion rate, and secondary surgery.

The accuracy of a method for printing three-dimensional spinal models.

BACKGROUND: To study the morphology of the human spine and new spinal fixation methods, scientists require cadaveric specimens, which are dependent on donation. However, in most countries, the number of people willing to donate their body is low. A 3D printed model could be an alternative method for morphology research, but the accuracy of the morphology of a 3D printed model has not been determined. METHODS: Forty-five computed tomography (CT) scans of cervical, thoracic and lumbar spines were obtained, and 44 parameters of the cervical spine, 120 parameters of the thoracic spine, and 50 parameters of the lumbar spine were measured. The CT scan data in DICOM format were imported into Mimics software v10.01 for 3D reconstruction, and the data were saved in .STL format and imported to Cura software. After a 3D digital model was formed, it was saved in Gcode format and exported to a 3D printer for printing. After the 3D printed models were obtained, the above-referenced parameters were measured again. RESULTS: Paired t-tests were used to determine the significance, set to P<0.05, of all parameter data from the radiographic images and 3D printed models. Furthermore, 88.6% of all parameters of the cervical spine, 90% of all parameters of the thoracic spine, and 94% of all parameters of the lumbar spine had Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values >0.800. The other ICC values were <0.800 and >0.600; none were <0.600. CONCLUSION: In this study, we provide a protocol for printing accurate 3D spinal models for surgeons and researchers. The resulting 3D printed model is inexpensive and easily obtained for spinal fixation research.

The radiological feature of anterior occiput-to-axis screw fixation as it guides the screw trajectory on 3D printed models: a feasibility study on 3D images and 3D printed models.

Anterior occiput-to-axis screw fixation is more suitable than a posterior approach for some patients with a history of posterior surgery. The complex osseous anatomy between the occiput and the axis causes a high risk of injury to neurological and vascular structures, and it is important to have an accurate screw trajectory to guide anterior occiput-to-axis screw fixation. Thirty computed tomography (CT) scans of upper cervical spines were obtained for three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction. Cylinders (1.75 mm radius) were drawn to simulate the trajectory of an anterior occiput-to-axis screw. The imitation screw was adjusted to 4 different angles and measured, as were the values of the maximized anteroposterior width and the left-right width of the occiput (C0) to the C1 and C1 to C2 joints. Then, the 3D models were printed, and an angle guide device was used to introduce the screws into the 3D models referring to the angles calculated from the 3D images. We found the screw angle ranged from α1 (left: 4.99±4.59°; right: 4.28±5.45°) to α2 (left: 20.22±3.61°; right: 19.63±4.94°); on the lateral view, the screw angle ranged from ß1 (left: 13.13±4.93°; right: 11.82±5.64°) to ß2 (left: 34.86±6.00°; right: 35.01±5.77°). No statistically significant difference was found between the data of the left and right sides. On the 3D printed models, all of the anterior occiput-to-axis screws were successfully introduced, and none of them penetrated outside of the cortex; the mean α4 was 12.00±4.11 (left) and 12.25±4.05 (right), and the mean ß4 was 23.44±4.21 (left) and 22.75±4.41 (right). No significant difference was found between α4 and ß4 on the 3D printed models and α3 and ß3 calculated from the 3D digital images of the left and right sides. Aided with the angle guide device, we could achieve an optimal screw trajectory for anterior occiput-to-axis screw fixation on 3D printed C0 to C2 models.