Dataset Information

Step-by-step guide to robotic-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

ABSTRACT: Robotics in spinal surgery offers a promising potential to refine and improve the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) technique. Suitable surgeons for this technique include those who are already familiar with robotic-guided lumbar pedicle screw placement and want to advance their skillset by incorporating posterior-based interbody fusion. We provide a step-by-step guide for robotic-guided MI-TLIF. The procedure is divided into 7 practical and detailed techniques. The steps in sequential order include: (I) planning trajectories for pedicle screws and the tubular retractor; (II) robotic-guided pedicle screw placement; (III) placement of tubular retractor; (IV) unilateral facetectomy using the surgical microscope; (V) discectomy & disc preparation; (VI) interbody implant insertion; and (VII) percutaneous rod placement. We standardize surgeon training in robotic MI-TLIF by teaching our spine surgery fellows these 7 key technical steps highlighted in this guide. Current-generation robotics offers integrated navigation capability, K-wireless placement of pedicle screws through a rigid robotic arm, compatibility with tubular retractor systems to perform facetectomy, and allows for placement of interbody devices. We have found robotic-guided MI-TLIF to be a safe procedure that allows for accurate and reliable pedicle screw placement, less collateral damage to the soft tissues of the low back, and decreased radiation exposure.

SUBMITTER: Sarmiento JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10061490 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Step-by-step guide to robotic-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

Sarmiento J Manuel JM Shahi Pratyush P Melissaridou Dimitra D Fourman Mitchell S MS Araghi Kasra K Qureshi Sheeraz A SA

Annals of translational medicine 20221222 5

Robotics in spinal surgery offers a promising potential to refine and improve the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) technique. Suitable surgeons for this technique include those who are already familiar with robotic-guided lumbar pedicle screw placement and want to advance their skillset by incorporating posterior-based interbody fusion. We provide a step-by-step guide for robotic-guided MI-TLIF. The procedure is divided into 7 practical and detailed techniques. ...[more]

PMID: 37007570

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designProspective cohort study.ObjectiveTo assess the differences in the clinical and radiological outcomes between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).Summary of background dataNowadays, there is still a controversy regarding whether OLIF is superior to MI-TLIF in the management of degenerative lumbar disease.MethodsBetween August 3, 2019 and February 3, 2020, 137 patients were assigned to OLIF or MI-TLIF at their request and the surgeon's discretion: 71 in the OLIF group and 66 in the MI-TLIF group. The perioperative data, patient-reported outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe OLIF group showed shorter operation time (110.5 vs.183.8 minutes, P < 0.001), lesser estimated blood loss (123.1 vs. 232.0 mL, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (5.5 vs. 6.7 days, P < 0.001), and lower serum creatine kinase (CK) (1 day postoperatively) (376.0 vs. 541.8 IU/L, P < 0.01) than that of MI-TLIF group. Both groups showed no significant differences in the visual analog scale (VAS) scores of lower back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 12 months postoperatively, respectively (P > 0.05). Compared with the MI-TLIF group, the OLIF group showed better restoration of disc height (DH) (4.7/4.6/4.7 vs. 3.7/3.7/3.7 mm, P < 0.01) and lumbar lordosis angle (LLA) (10.5°/10.8°/11.1° vs. 5.8°/5.7°/5.3°, P < 0.001), but not the value of segmental lordosis angle (SLA) (P > 0.05) at 1 day, 1 month, and 1 year postoperatively, respectively. The complication rate of OLIF was higher than that of MI-TLIF (29.4% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.01).ConclusionCompared with MI-TLIF, OLIF showed similar results in terms of patient-reported outcomes, restoration of SLA and fusion rate, and superior results with respect to restoration of DH and LLA, operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and serum CK levels (1 day postoperatively). Even though the complication rate of OLIF is higher than that of MI-TLIF, it does not bring persistent and substantial damage to the patients.Level of Evidence: 3.

Project description:This meta-analysis aims to determine the clinical outcomes, complications, and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intra-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were: five or more consecutive patients who underwent iLIF or MI-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases; description of the surgical technique; clinical outcome measures, complications and imaging assessment; minimum follow-up of 12 months. Surgical time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were extracted. Mean outcome improvements were pooled and compared with minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Pooled and direct meta-analysis were evaluated. We identified 42 eligible studies. The iLIF group had significantly lower mean intra-operative blood loss, unstandardized mean difference (UMD) 110.61 mL (95%CI 70.43; 150.80; p value < 0.0001), and significantly decreased length of hospital stay (UMD 2.36; 95%CI 1.77; 2.94; p value < 0.0001). Visual analogue scale (VAS) back, VAS leg and Oswestry disability index (ODI) baseline to last follow-up mean improvements were statistically significant (p value < 0.0001), and clinically important for both groups (MCID VAS back > 1.16; MCID VAS leg > 1.36; MCID > 12.40). There was no significant difference in complication nor fusion rates between both cohorts. Interbody fusion using either iLIF or MI-TLIF leads to significant and clinically important improvements in clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Both procedures provide high rates of fusion at 12 months or later, without significant difference in complication rates. iLIF is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay. Study registration: PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: Registration No. CRD42020180980, accessible at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ April 2020.

Project description:Background and Objective: Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) has been investigated and shown excellent short- and long-term outcomes. In this paper, we describe a new MIS-TLIF technique and pedicle screw insertion using a marker screw as a guidance method. Moreover, we report perioperative, postoperative, and patient-related outcomes. In addition, this paper outlines major differences in radiation exposure, cost effectiveness and accuracy of Marker Screw Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (MS-MIS TLIF) compared to other techniques. We report our technique to share our knowledge and experience with the aim of achieving a better MIS-TLIF that would help both surgeons and patients. Materials and Methods: A prospective case series was conducted between October 2018 and February 2021. Patients undergoing MS-MIS TLIF with marker screws were consecutively included. The surgery did not exceed two levels. The patients' medical records were reviewed, and the included patients were asked to complete two outcome-questionnaires before surgery and at the six-month visit. The surgical technique is described in this paper. Results: A total of 37 patients were recruited. The mean age was 57.35 ± 12.8 years, and more than half of the patients were females. The most common indications for surgery were degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis, with the typical level at L4-5. The operative time was 3.02 ± 0.83 h, while the estimated blood loss was 127.7 ± 71.1 mL. The average time for ambulation and hospitalization was 1 ± 1.1 and 2.84 ± 1.4 days, respectively. The patients described significant improvement in both questionnaires. No screw-related complications or screw revisions were needed up to two years of follow-up. Conclusions: The use of marker screws for pedicle screw placement through a minimally invasive fashion is shown to be a promising technique that can overcome many drawbacks, including cost, operative time, and radiation exposure. Performing MS-MIS TLIF can achieve a 360- degree fusion compared to percutaneous MIS-TLIF.

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.

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.

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 .

Project description:IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Dataset Information

Step-by-step guide to robotic-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

Publications

Step-by-step guide to robotic-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets