Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis

Peng, Peng; Chen, Kangwu; Chen, Hao; Zhang, Kai; Sun, Jing; Yang, Peng; Zhou, Feng; Liu, Yu; Yang, Huilin; Mao, Huimin

doi:10.1016/j.jot.2019.10.001

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 For patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis, nonsurgical treatment that is a combination of pain medication and physiotherapy is recommended. 7 Within the last decades, posterolateral fusion (PLF) 8,9 and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) 10,11 have become the most popular techniques that can stabilize the lumbar spine, and effectively improve postoperative performance scores. 8,9,12,13 However, the desirability of each technique is debatable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters

Farrokhi

Eghbal

Mousavi

et al. 2021

Indian Journal of Neurotrauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This retrospective study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF + PLF) for the treatment of patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Methodology A total of 77 adult patients ≥18 years with low-grade spondylolisthesis, Meyerding grades I and II, were assigned into two groups: 36 patients treated with PLF and 41 patients treated with TLIF + PLF. The PLF group is composed of the patients that were operated with pedicle screw and the TLIF + PLF group is composed of the ones that were operated with fixation and TILF by autografting. Clinical evaluation was performed using the spino-pelvic sagittal balance, Numeric Rating Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, blood loss, operation times, and postoperative hospital stay of the PLF vs TLIF groups. The incidences of postoperative low back pain and radicular pain in the two groups were also recorded. Radiography was performed preoperatively and postoperatively to assess spino-pelvic parameters. Results Significant restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance was observed in the TLIF group after surgery, and all spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters showed significant improvement in the TLIF group after surgery, while in the PLF group, all spino-pelvic sagittal parameters had improved except the segmental angle lordosis (p = 0.316), which showed no significant difference after surgery in the PLF group. Postoperative pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt significantly improved in the TLIF group in comparison to PLF groups. Hence, TLIF can achieve better postoperative spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters than PLF. There was no difference in the complication rates for each group. Both groups achieved significant improvement in postoperative clinical outcomes, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative low back pain or radicular pain between the two groups. Conclusion Both surgical procedures PLF and TLIF were effective. PLF and TLIF can result in improved clinical and radiological outcomes for patients treated for low-grade spondylolisthesis. TLIF can achieve better restoration of spino-pelvic sagittal balance parameters than PLF alone.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters

Farrokhi

Eghbal

Mousavi

et al. 2021

Indian Journal of Neurotrauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inclusion criteria included patients with high-grade spondylolisthesis L5-S1 (The spondylolistheses are divided into high (slippage >50%) and low (slippage <50%) grade). [ 22 ] Candidate for vertebral fusion with instrumentation, slip on the surface of a vertebra, age <80 years and patients consented to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria included patients who suffer from complications of surgery (root injury, rupture of the sac, etc.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 vertebral fusion in high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis

Rezvani¹,

Saboori²,

Mahmoodkhani³

et al. 2021

J Craniovert Jun Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: One of the most common types of spinal diseases is spondylolisthesis, which in advanced cases requires surgical intervention. This study aimed to compare the results of L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 vertebral fusion treatment in high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. Methods: A study design that randomized controlled trial. A total of 70 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of spondylolisthesis at Al-Zahra Hospital in Isfahan, Iran, were evaluated from July 2020 to February 2021 (35 patients underwent L4-L5-S1 and 35 received L5-S1 vertebral fusion treatment). The radicular and low back pain (LBP) intensity (Vanguard Australian Shares), blood loss, wound infection, reduction, and quality of life (SF-12 scores) were quantified before the surgery, 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery in two groups. Results: Patients involved in the two groups had similar baseline demographic characteristics. The percent slip in L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 group, respectively, postoperative 81.11% and 57.89%, P = 0.0001. Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative were higher in the L4-L5-S1 group when compared to the L5-S1 group ( P < 0.05). The wound infection rate of the L4-L5-S1 group was similar to that of the L5-S1 group (8.6% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.303). There was no difference in radicular and LBP intensity, SF-12 scores among patients with L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 groups ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 were equally beneficial in improving short-term functional outcomes for patients with high grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. However, L4-L5-S1 was associated with statistically significant higher incidences of blood loss, but it was accompanied by a better reduction. Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering L4-L5-S1.

show abstract

“…The operating microscope with the advantages of signi cant magni cation and illumination has played an important role in modern microsurgery when visualizing delicate vascular structures and spinal anatomy. Microscope assisted MIS-TLIF was reported favorable clinical outcomes and low complication rates [12][13][14]. However, although providing direct binocular and stereoscopic vision, limitations of the operating microscope can include depth of eld, illumination, and ergonomics when working in deep corridors [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of a three-dimensional high-definition exoscope in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Yao

Xiong²,

Huang³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is becoming increasingly popular in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Microscope assisted MIS-TLIF was also reported favorable clinical outcomes and low complication rates, while limitations can include depth of field, illumination, and ergonomics. The exoscope has been introduced as an alternative to microscopes. In this report, we describe the application of the 3-dimensional (3D), high-definition (HD) exoscope for MIS-TLIF, and discuss its advantages and disadvantages. Methods Six patients were performed 3D-HD exoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF from September 2019 to December 2019. The exoscope was used [Kestrel View II, WEALTH CONCORD MITAKA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIESCO., LTD. OF SHANGHAI, CHINA] during soft tissue dissection, discectomy, decompression, and cage insertion. Results The exoscope provided an excellent 3D view of the surgical field and allowed us to effectively and safely perform the surgical steps. All 6 patients experienced excellent surgical outcomes. The main advantages of the 3D exoscope include the possibility to provide excellent, magnified, and illuminated 3D-HD images of the surgical field to the entire operating room and serving as an excellent training tool. Conclusion We believe that the 3D exoscope will be a safe and effective tool to perform MIS-TLIF.

show abstract

Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis

Cited by 20 publications

References 26 publications

Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters

Comparative Study between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion for Treatment of Spondylolisthesis: Clinical Outcomes and Spino-Pelvic Sagittal Balance Parameters

A comparative study of L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 vertebral fusion in high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis

Application of a three-dimensional high-definition exoscope in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About