Dataset Information

Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RGTLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF).

Methods

Using data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).

Results

Among the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.

SUBMITTER: Staartjes VE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8021835 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundControversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis.MethodsA consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS.ResultsSixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was <21°, and loss of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°.ConclusionsWhile group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique.

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.