Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.
Ontology highlight
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
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 .
| S-EPMC8449429 | 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: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.
| S-EPMC7877595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods This study compared 24 patients undergoing TLIF and 32 patients undergoing PLF with instrumentation. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain, physical component summary (PCS) of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic parameters included slippage of the vertebra, local disk lordosis, the anterior and posterior disk height, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic parameters. Results The improvement of VAS of leg pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF unilaterally (3.4 versus 1.0; p = 0.02). The improvement of VAS of low back pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF (3.8 versus 2.2; p = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in improvement of ODI or PCS between TLIF and PLF. Reduction of slippage and the postoperative disk height was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF. There was no significant difference in local disk lordosis, lumbar lordosis, or pelvic parameters. The fusion rate was 96% in TLIF and 84% in PLF (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference in fusion rate, estimated blood loss, adjacent segmental degeneration, or complication rate. Conclusions TLIF was superior to PLF in reduction of slippage and restoring disk height and might provide better improvement of leg pain. However, the health-related outcomes were not significantly different between the two procedures.
| S-EPMC4369196 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.MethodsOf 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).ResultsThe mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups.ConclusionsBoth Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD.
| S-EPMC4732666 | 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:Symptomatic spondylolisthesis patients may benefit from surgical decompression and stabilization. The standard (S) technique is a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Newer, minimally invasive (MI) techniques seem to provide similar results with less morbidity. We enrolled patients with at least 6 months of symptoms and image-confirmed low-grade spondylolisthesis, at a single academic institution, between 2011 and 2015. The patients were randomized to either S or MI TLIF. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcome measures included length of operation, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and fusion rates at 1 year. Forty patients were enrolled in each group. The differences in mean operative time and estimated blood loss were not statistically significant between the two groups. The patients were discharged after surgery at 4.12 days for the S TLIF group and 1.92 days for the MI TLIF group. The ODI improvement was similar and statistically significant in both groups. The fusion was considered solid in 36 (90%) of patients at 1 year in both groups. In conclusion, the two techniques provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes at 1 year. The patients undergoing MI TLIF had a shorter hospital stay. This trial is registered with NCT03155789.
| S-EPMC5494074 | 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:Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored "much better" in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.
| S-EPMC4516755 | biostudies-other
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