Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar fusion.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ma JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583231 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar fusion.
Ma Jian-jun JJ Fan Shun-wu SW Zhao Feng-dong FD Fang Xiang-qian XQ
Orthopaedic surgery 20140201 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the biomechanical effects of the lumbar posterior complex on the adjacent segments after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgeries.MethodsA finite element model of the L1-S1 segment was modified to simulate PLIF with total laminectomy (PLIF-LAM) and PLIF with hemilaminectomy (PLIF-HEMI) procedures. The models were subjected to a 400N follower load with a 7.5-N.m moment of flexion, extension, torsion, and lateral bending. The range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), and ligament force were compared.ResultsIn Flexion, the ROM, IDP and ligament force of posterior longitudinal ligament, intertransverse ligament, and capsular ligament remarkably increased at the proximal adjacent segment in the PLIF-LAM model, and slightly increased in the PLIF-HEMI model. There was almost no difference for the ROM, IDP and ligament force at L5-S1 level between the two PLIF models although the ligament forces of ligamenta flava remarkably increased compared with the intact lumbar spine (INT) model. For the other loading conditions, these two models almost showed no difference in ROM, IDP and ligament force on the adjacent discs.ConclusionsPreserved posterior complex acts as the posterior tension band during PLIF surgery and results in less ROM, IDP and ligament forces on the proximal adjacent segment in flexion. Preserving the posterior complex during decompression can be effective on preventing adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following PLIF surgeries.
| S-EPMC5117648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Objectives: Various surgical approaches have been proposed for treating adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion. However, studies using oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) to treat ASD are lacking. The current study assessed the postoperative outcomes of single-level OLIF for ASD, comparing the results with those for patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods: Patients who underwent single-level OLIF or TLIF for lumbar ASD were retrospectively included. Clinical outcomes, that is, the results of assessments using the Euroqol 5-Dimension quality of life scale (EQ-5D), the Oswestry Disability Index, and the visual analog scale, were evaluated. Radiologic parameters, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), segmental coronal angle (SCA), lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, were also assessed. Results: A total of 65 patients were enrolled: 32 in the OLIF group and 33 in the TLIF group. The median follow-up time was 24.0 months in both groups. The clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters significantly improved in both groups postoperatively. According to intergroup comparisons, the OLIF group had significantly less blood loss and superior improvement in radiologic parameters (DH, SL, and SCA) whereas the TLIF group had significantly shorter operation times. For the OLIF patients who did not undergo posterior decompression, the operation time was similar to that of the TLIF group, but the surgical blood loss and length of hospital stay were significantly reduced compared with the TLIF group. Conclusions: Compared with TLIF, OLIF provides similar clinical outcomes, leads to less surgical blood loss, and has superior radiologic parameters; however, the operation time is significantly longer. OLIF without posterior decompression may be a superior option to TLIF for certain patients.
| S-EPMC11476864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is an acknowledged problem of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Many studies have been reported concerning the role of lordosis distribution index (LDI) in spinal biomechanics. However, few reports have been published about the impact of LDI on ASD following L4-S1 PLIF. METHODS:The study enrolled 200 subjects who underwent L4-S1 PLIF for degenerative spine disease from 2009 to 2014. The average follow-up term was 84?months. Several lower lumbar parameters were measured, including lower lumbar lordosis (LLL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and LDI on the pre and postoperative radiograph. Perioperative information, comorbidities, and operative data were documented. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for the comparisons of ASD-free survival of 3 different types of postoperative LDI subgroups. RESULTS:The incidence of ASD was found to be 8.5%. LL and LLL increased by 3.96° (38.71° vs 42.67°; P < 0.001) and 3.60° (26.22° vs 28.82°; P < 0.001) after lower lumbar fusion surgery, respectively. Lordosis distribution index (LDI) increased by 0.03 (0.66 vs 0.69, P = 0.004) postoperatively. A significant difference (P = 0.001) was observed when comparing the incidence of ASD among postoperative LDI subgroups. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed a marked difference in ASD-free survival between low and moderate LDI subgroup (log-rank test, P = 0.0012) and high and moderate LDI subgroup (log-rank test, P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION:Patients with abnormal postoperative LDI were statistically more likely to develop ASD than those who had normal postoperative LDI. Moreover, patients with low postoperative LDI were at greater risk for developing ASD than those with high postoperative LDI over time.
| S-EPMC7119009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .
| S-EPMC8449429 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6728849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to perform a meta-analysis that integrates multiple literature sources to evaluate the clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treating lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).MethodsA systematic search was conducted across various databases, including CNKI, VIP, WANFANG DATA, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, for clinical comparative studies on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating LDD, covering the time frame from the inception of the databases to September 2024. Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were screened, assessed, and data were extracted rigorously. Indicators extracted included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disc height (DH), segmental lordotic angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), postoperative JOA scores, patient satisfaction, complication rates, and fusion rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.ResultsA total of 24 studies were included, comprising 11 randomized controlled trials and 13 retrospective cohort studies. The total population consisted of 1785 patients, with 898 in the OLIF group and 887 in the MIS-TLIF group. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to the MIS-TLIF group, the OLIF group exhibited significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, improved postoperative DH, shorter operative time, reduced postoperative VAS scores, lower postoperative ODI scores, and improved postoperative SLA and LLA. No significant differences were observed between the groups in postoperative JOA scores, fusion rates, complication rates, or patient satisfaction. The OLIF group exhibited advantages such as lower blood loss, shorter hospital stays, higher postoperative fusion rates, and improved recovery of disc and foraminal heights.ConclusionCompared to MIS-TLIF, OLIF is associated with a shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss, potentially leading to better relief of leg pain, restoration of DH, and prevention of subsidence. These findings offer valuable insights for clinical practice.
| S-EPMC11684309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the curative effect between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in obese patients with lumbar disk prolapse.Patients and methodsIn this study, 72 patients who underwent lumbar disk prolapse therapy in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University between March 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively analyzed and were divided into two groups, MIS-TLIF group (n=35) and PLIF group (n=37), according to different surgical procedures. Several clinical parameters were compared between these two groups.ResultsCompared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, less postoperative drainage and shorter postoperative time in bed; moreover, patients in the MIS-TLIF group had lower levels of serum creatine kinase on 1, 3 and 5 postoperative days. At the 3- and 6-month follow-up, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of low back pain of patients in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly reduced and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were increased, whereas the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) showed no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionObese patients can achieve good efficacy with MIS-TLIF or PLIF treatment, but MIS-TLIF surgery showed longer operative time, fewer traumas and bleeding volume, less incidence of short-term pain, low complication rate and faster postoperative recovery.
| S-EPMC5261601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and imaging results of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PETLIF) through comparing it with minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF).Materials and methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis on patients with lumbar degenerative disease treated by PETLIF or MISTLIF from September 2017 to January 2019, and the patients were divided into two groups: the PETLIF group and the MISTLIF group. The clinical and imaging parameters of the two groups were evaluated.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time and complication rate. The estimated blood loss and the length of hospital stay in the PETLIF group were significantly better than those in the MISTLIF group. Compared with those before operation, the postoperative VAS-L and VAS-B scores were significantly improved after operation in the both groups. In addition, the postoperative VAS-B score of the PETLIF group was significantly lower than that of the MISTLIF group. At the last follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the VAS-L score, VAS-B score, ODI score, and bony fusion rate.ConclusionsBoth PETLIF and MISTLIF could achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease, but our study suggested that PETLIF had less damage, rapid recovery after operation, and short discharge time.
| S-EPMC8626985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We reviewed the records of a prospective consecutive cohort to evaluate the clinical performance of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with a titanium box cage and posterior fixation, with emphasis on long-term functional outcome. Thirty-two patients with chronic low back pain underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation. Radiological and functional results (visual analogue scale [VAS] and Oswestry score) were evaluated. Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) was evaluated radiologically and by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Twenty-five patients (78%) were available for follow-up. Functional scores showed significant improvement in pain and function up to the 2-year follow-up observation. At 4 years, there was some deterioration of the clinical results. At 10-year follow-up, results remained stable compared with 4-year results. MRI showed ASD in 3/25 (12%) above and 2/10 (20%) below index level (compared with absent preoperatively). ASD could not be related to clinical outcome in this study. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation is safe and effective. Initial improvement in VAS and Oswestry scores is partly lost at the 4-year follow-up. Good clinical results are maintained at 10-year follow-up and are not related to adjacent segment degeneration.
| S-EPMC3864470 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsProspective 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 (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.ResultsTwenty-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).ConclusionsMIS-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.
| S-EPMC4989430 | biostudies-literature