Editorial on "Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating: a randomised clinical pilot study".
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hoy K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6046333 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Lumbar fusion with implantation of interbody cage is a common procedure for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. This study aims to compare the fusion and subsidence rates of titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and investigate the effect of clinical and radiological outcomes following fusion on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS:A systematic search strategy of 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted using different MeSH (medical subject headings) terms until January 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed and random-effect models based upon the heterogeneity (I2) to estimate the association between interbody cages and the measured outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 1,094 patients from 11 studies were reviewed. The final analysis included 421 patients (38.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a Ti and/or a Ti-coated interbody cage and 673 patient (61.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a PEEK cage. Overall, PEEK interbody devices were associated with a significantly lower fusion rate compared with Ti interbody devices (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93; p = 0.02). There was no difference in subsidence rates between Ti and PEEK groups (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54-1.52; p = 0.71). Also, there were no statistically significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS)-low back pain (p = 0.14) and Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (p = 0.86) between the 2 groups. However, the PEEK group had lower odds of leg pain after surgery compared to the Ti group (OR [VAS-leg], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.28-0.94; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION:Ti and Ti-coated PEEK cages used for posterior lumbar interbody fusion are associated with similar rates of subsidence, but a higher rate of fusion compared to PEEK interbody cages. Randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the effect of cage materials and potential factors that could influence the outcomes of interbody lumbar fusion.
| S-EPMC7136087 | 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: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
Project description:Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may have advantages of minimally invasive fusion surgery as well as those of endoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to present the biportal endoscopic TLIF technique along with video presentations and a review of the literature on this technique. Basically, the biportal endoscopic TLIF technique is similar to minimally invasive TLIF with a tubular retractor. There were 2 options in the biportal endoscopic TLIF procedures. The first was the insertion of one long TLIF cage and the other was the insertion of 2 short posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages. After the interbody fusion procedures, percutaneous pedicles screw fixation was performed. Biportal endoscopic TLIF achieved complete neural decompression through laminectomy and facetectomy like conventional TLIF. Endplate preparation was performed completely under a clear and magnified endoscopic view. It was also feasible to insert a large TLIF cage or 2 cages for PLIF without exiting nerve root injury. Biportal endoscopic TLIF might have the advantages of endoscopic surgery as well as minimally invasive fusion surgery. Direct neural decompression, endplate preparation under endoscopic guidance, and the insertion of a large TLIF cage or 2 PLIF cages may be the merits of biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion procedures.
| S-EPMC7410385 | 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:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis by meta-analysis.MethodsA computer-based search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection databases, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, and Wanfang Digital Periodicals was conducted from the time of inception of each database to December 2021. The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Library.ResultsThirteen studies were included in the statistical analysis. One randomized controlled study and 12 cohort studies with 954 patients were included. In terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Oswestry disability index score, intervertebral height, and complications, the OLIF group was better than the TLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of visual analogue scale score, lumbar lordosis or fused segment lordosis (P > 0.05).ConclusionBoth OLIF and TLIF are effective surgical modalities in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. They achieve similar therapeutic effects, but OLIF is superior to TLIF in restoring intervertebral height. At the same time, OLIF has the advantages of short operation time and less intraoperative blood loss.
| S-EPMC9624480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdvances in modern spinal fusion techniques have allowed for less peri-operative morbidity and more rapid recovery from surgery. The addition of endoscopy to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fusion techniques represents the latest progression of efforts to minimize the impact of surgical intervention.TechniqueMIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is performed endoscopically through a sub-centimeter working portal. Patients undergo light conscious sedation and remain awake to facilitate feedback with the surgeon and enhance post-operative recovery.ResultsPreviously reported results of the first 100 cases performed by the senior author at a single institution are summarized. This cohort has been characterized by brief post-operative length of stay, low complication profile, and marked improvement in patient-reported outcomes scores, with no cases of pseudarthrosis at 1-year follow up.ConclusionsThe latest technical considerations and adaptations of a novel technique for endoscopic MIS spinal fusion without general anesthesia are described. A refined surgical technique and anesthetic protocol are presented in detail with recommendations for the successful implementation and performance of the procedure.
| S-EPMC7253549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (modified MIS-TLIF) versus conventional TLIF in the lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Materials and methodsForty patients with 1-level lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. Perioperative indexes including operation time, intraoperative bleeding, bed rest time, time of hospitalisation stay and the accuracy rate of screw placement were analysed. Preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed.ResultsThe operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group (p < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the improvement of VAS and ODI in the modified MIS-TLIF group were lower than that in the conventional TLIF group 1 and 6 months after operation (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up (p > 0.05).ConclusionNavigation and microscope-assisted MIS-TLIF is safe and reliable for treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding degree I or II) with potential advantages including less injury, less blood loss, higher screw accuracy and faster recovery after operation.The translational potential of this articleCompared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion has a huge advantage in surgery treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. Hence, this article provided a better surgery method to deal with lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, and robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion will be adopted in the future.
| S-EPMC6939115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) is a novel operation for fusions of the lumbar spine from T12-S1. In OLLIF, the disk is approached from an oblique lateral angle guided by electrophysiological monitoring and biplanar fluoroscopy; the disk space is accessed through Kambin's triangle. We present perioperative, clinical, patient-reported and radiological outcomes from a series of 303 OLLIF procedures on 568 levels performed by the same surgeon. For a single-level OLLIF, mean surgery time was 56.6 ± 37.7 minutes, with a blood loss of 42.2 ± 31.1 mL, fluoroscopy time of 198.8 ± 87.2 seconds and a hospital stay of 2.2 ± 1.7 days. At the one-year follow-up, 10-point pain scale scores improved from 8.6 ± 1.3 to 4.1 ± 3.0 (p < 0.001). Total Oswestry disability index score improved from 56.6% ± 15.3% to 38.6% ± 21.4% (p < 0.001). At the one-year follow-up, 15 (5%) patients had mild nerve root irritation defined as sensory symptoms and motor weakness better than 4/5. Only one patient had neuropraxia due to weakness (3/5). There was one case (0.3%) of superficial wound infection and one case of bleeding into the psoas major. Reoperation within one year was performed for 14 (4.7%) patients. Interbody fusion was achieved in 98.7% of levels. While OLLIF has previously been described, this study is the first to present clinical, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes of OLLIF. Review of the literature shows that OLLIF produces perioperative outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates that compare favorably with similar procedures. We establish that OLLIF is a safe, efficient and efficacious procedure for fusions of the lumbar spine.
| S-EPMC6453614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages.MethodsA meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications.ResultsThe analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates.ConclusionAlthough banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.
| S-EPMC10992667 | biostudies-literature