Objectives: To compare the clinical efficacy of a new retractor-assisted Wiltse transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF), and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in treating single-level lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods: A retrospective study was conducted by analyzing the clinical and imaging data of consecutive patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent the new retractor-assisted Wiltse TLIF, MIS-TLIF, or traditional PLIF. This study enrolled 87 concurrent patients between June 2016 and December 2019 (Wiltse TLIF 29 cases; MIS-TLIF 28 cases; PLIF 30 cases). The three groups were compared for perioperative indicators (including intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, bedridden time), creatine kinase (CK), visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, intervertebral fusion rate, muscle atrophy, and fatty infiltration (including ratio of multifidus atrophy and ratio of lean-to-total cross-sectional area [CSA]).Results: Intraoperative blood loss (F = 62.628, p < 0.001), postoperative drainage volume (F = 72.048, p < 0.001), and bedridden time (χ 2 = 62.289, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF and Wiltse groups than in the PLIF group. The operative and intraoperative radiation times of the MIS-TLIF group were significantly longer than those of the Wiltse and PLIF groups. The CK concentration in the Wiltse and MIS-TLIF groups were significantly lower than those in the PLIF group 1 day (F = 9.331, p < 0.001) and 3 days after surgery (F = 15.967, p < 0.001). The PLIF group's back pain VAS score was higher than those of the Wiltse and MIS-TLIF groups. The PLIF group had a higher ODI 6 months (F = 3.282, p = 0.042) and 12 months (F = 5.316, p = 0.007) after surgery and a lower JOA score than the Wiltse and MIS-TLIF groups 6 months (F = 3.234, p = 0.044) and 12 months (F = 3.874, p = 0.025) after surgery. The ratio of multifidus atrophy in the PLIF group (41.70 AE 8.84%) was significantly higher than those of the Wiltse group (24.13 AE 6.82%) and the MIS-TLIF group (22.35 AE 5.03%). The ratio of lean-to-total CSA in the PLIF group was lower than those of the Wiltse and MIS-TLIF groups after surgery (F = 8.852, p < 0.001). MIS-TLIF group showed longer operation time (169.11 AE 29.38 min) and intraoperative fluoroscopy time (87.61 AE 3.13 s) than the Wiltse group. Conclusion:Wiltse TLIF assisted by the new retractor is a more convenient and minimally invasive surgical method than the traditional PLIF and MIS-TLIF methods, which are linked to a long learning curve and long operation and fluoroscopy time.

Objective: To assess and compare the therapeutic effects of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Cervical Laminectomy and Fusion (CLF) in the treatment of 4-level cervical. Methods:We performed a retrospective review on 39 patients with 4-level CSM who underwent ACDF or CLF in the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2010 to December 2018. The patients were divided into ACDF group and CLF group according to the treatment. The operative index was evaluated based on intraoperative blood loss and operation time. The functional outcomes including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and visual analogue scale (VAS) of axial pain were compared. The Cobb angle, Cobb angle improvement rate, range of motion (ROM) and ROM loss ratio were measured for radiographic evaluation. Results:No major complications or deaths occurred. The average age at baseline was 55 years. There was no significant difference between the ACDF and CLF group in follow-up time (26.29 months, 25.39 months, P > 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss was higher in the CLF group than in the ACDF group (692.67 AE 38.68 vs 392.14 AE 128.06, P < 0.05). The operation time was longer in the CLF group than in the ACDF group (206.60 AE 49.37 vs 172.64 AE 31.96, P < 0.05). Significant improvements in the VAS and JOA scores were observed in both groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference in VAS was found between the ACDF and CLF groups (P < 0.05). There was a significantly larger improvement rate of JOA score in the ACDF group than in the CLF group (60.9% AE 9.57% vs 31.5% AE 15.70%, P < 0.05). There were two (9.6%) cases with complications In the ACDF group, including one (4.8%) case of dysphagia and one (4.8%) case of pharyngodynia. In the CLF group, two patients (11.1%) developed C 5 palsy. No significant difference in the incidence of complications, ROM loss ratio and Cobb angle improvement rate was found between group ACDF and group CLF (all P < 0.05). Conclusion:Both ACDF and CLF were effective in the treatment of multi-level cervical spondylosis and ACDF is more suitable for patients with 4-level CSM.

This review summarizes recent research progress in the clinical features, image manifestations, and pathological mechanism of multifidus injury. After a brief introduction to the fiber classification, innervation, blood supply, and multifidus function, some factors of multifidus injury, consisting of denervation, intraoperative incision selection and traction, and lumbar degenerative disease are overviewed. In addition, the clinical index of multifidus injury including myoglobin, creatine kinase, IL-6, C-reactive protein, the cross-sectional area of multifidus, the degree of fat infiltration, and intraoperative biopsy are summarized. Furthermore, we recommend that patients with chronic low back pain should take the long-term exercise of lumbodorsal muscles. Finally, some remaining issues, including external fixation and the imaging quantitative evaluation criteria of multifidus, need to be further explored in the future.

No abstract

Objective: Nowadays, with the increasing proportion of osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, doctors are facing the choice of intraoperative internal fixation methods. The purpose of this study was to compare and assess the clinical results of posterior bilateral pedicle screw fixation and lateral fixation in the extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis. Methods:The retrospective review was performed on 67 degenerative lumbar diseases patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis who underwent XLIF in our hospital from January 2018 to July 2021. Patients in this study were classified into lateral screw (LS) group, lateral self-locking plate (LP) group, and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) group. The functional evaluation factors containing Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) of leg pain, and VAS of low back pain, radiological factors such as disc height (DH), lumbar lordotic (LL) angle, segmental lordotic (SL) angle, cage subsidence degree and interbody fusion degree were compared.Results: Primary outcomes: no differences were observed with regards to the incidence of complications among LS, LP and BS group (P < 0.05). The JOA and leg pain VAS were significantly improved after operation (P < 0.05) and all groups demonstrated similar improvements in the leg pain VAS and JOA score (P > 0.05). When comparing VAS of leg pain and JOA scores, no differences were identified among LS, LP and BPS groups (P > 0.05). There are four thigh sensory complaint, one hip flexor weakness and one thigh pain occurred and no death was observed. There were significantly better DH, LL angle, SL angle, cage subsidence degree and interbody fusion degree in the BPS group than in LS and LP groups 1 year after surgery (P < 0.05). The DH loss ratio, LL angle loss ratio, SL angle loss ratio in the BPS group was significantly lower than in the LP and LS groups (P < 0.05). The 12-month SL angle improvement rate in the BPS group was significantly higher than in the LP and LS groups (20.20 AE 14.69, 0.73 AE 4.68, 6.20 AE 12.31, P < 0.05). Secondary outcomes: the BPS patients had significantly worse intraoperative blood loss and operation time than LS and LP patients (P < 0.05). Conclusion:In lumbar diseases patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis, the bilateral pedicle screw fixation has better orthopedic effect than lateral internal fixation, and can better maintain the stability of the spine in the long-term follow-up, which is a better choice in XLIF surgery.