Comparison of Simultaneous Single-Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-arm Navigated Technique for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tan Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8584546 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThis is a meta-analysis to compare the clinical results between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation in lumbar interbody fusion.MethodsWe included published studies with no language and year restrictions. The criteria which Koes et al. designed in 1995 were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. All data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.1. The primary outcomes included fusion rate and screw complications, and the secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, and hospital time.ResultsA total of five prospective studies with 407 patients were included in the current meta-analysis, and four of them were randomized controlled trials. There was no significant difference between unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation group in fusion rate and screw complications (fusion rate: OR 0.54, Z = 1.33, P = 0.18, I (2) = 0 %; screw complications: OR 1.45, Z = 0.71, P = 0.48; I (2) = 44 %). In the secondary outcomes, the operative time (Z = 3.35, P = 0.0008; I (2) = 95 %) and blood loss (Z = 4.35, P < 0.0001; I (2) = 98 %) was significantly higher in bilateral PS fixation group than in unilateral PS fixation group. Besides, no significant difference was found in hospital time (Z = 1.19, P = 0.24; I (2) = 99 %).ConclusionsIn our meta-analysis, we found that unilateral PS fixation in lumbar fusion was as effective as bilateral PS fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases without major instability, no significant difference was found in hospital time, fusion rate and screw complications. In terms of operative time and blood loss, unilateral PS fixation even produced better results.
| S-EPMC3906456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PS) after lumbar interbody fusion is a widely accepted method of managing various spinal diseases. Recently, unilateral PS fixation has been reported as effective as bilateral PS fixation. This meta-analysis aimed to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation in the minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Cochrane Library were searched through March 30, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion that met the inclusion criteria and the methodological quality standard were retrieved and reviewed. Data on participant characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2. RESULTS: Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 CCT) involving 298 patients were selected. There were no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PS fixation procedures in fusion rate, complications, visual analogue score (VAS) for leg pain, VAS for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI). Both fixation procedures had similar length of hospital stay (MD?=?0.38, 95% CI?=?-0.83 to 1.58; P?=?0.54). In contrast, bilateral PS fixation was associated with significantly more intra-operative blood loss (P?=?0.002) and significantly longer operation time (P?=?0.02) as compared with unilateral PS fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral PS fixation appears as effective and safe as bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion but requires less operative time and causes less blood loss, thus offering a simple alternative approach for one-level lumbar degenerative disease.
| S-EPMC4223107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or combined OLIF between 07/2014 and 08/2017 at two hospitals in China. Direct decompressions were not performed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, anterior/posterior disc heights (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, fusion rate, and complications were analyzed. All imaging examinations were read independently by two physicians and the mean measurements were used for analysis. RESULTS:A total of 73 patients were included: 32 with standalone OLIF and 41 with combined OLIF. The total complication rate was 25.0% with standalone OLIF and 26.8% with combined OLIF. There were no differences in VAS and ODI scores by 2?years of follow-up, but the scores were better with standalone OLIF at 1?week and 3?months (P?<?0.05). PDH and FW was smaller in the combined OLIF group compared with the standalone OLIF group before and after surgery (all P?<?0.05). There were significant differences in FH before surgery and at 1?week and 3?months between the two groups (all P?<?0.05), but the difference disappeared by 2?years (P?=?0.111). Cage subsidence occurred in 7.3% (3/41) and 7.3% (3/41) of the patients at 3 and 24?months, respectively, in the combined OLIF group, compared with 6.3% (2/32) and 15.6% (5/32), respectively, in the standalone OLIF group at the same time points (P?=?0.287). There was no cage retropulsion in both groups at 2?years. The fusion rate was 85.4%(35/41) in the combined OLIF group and 84.4% (27/32) in the standalone OLIF group at 3?months(P?=?0.669). At 24?months, the fusion rate was 100.0% in the combined OLIF group and 93.8% (30/32) in the standalone OLIF group (P?=?0.066). CONCLUSION:Standalone OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiological outcomes than OLIF combined with fixation for spondylolisthesis. The rate of complications was similar between the two groups. Patients who are osteoporotic might be better undergoing combined rather than standalone OLIF. The possibilty of proof lies within a future prospective study, preferably an RCT.
| S-EPMC7092594 | 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:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become one of the most widely used procedures for lumbar spinal disorders. However, it is still unclear whether TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation is as effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. We performed a meta-analysis of the literatures and aimed to gain a better understanding of whether TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was safe and effective for lumbar diseases.Methodology/principal findingsWe systematically searched Ovid, Springer, and Medline databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in TLIF. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. According to our predefined inclusion criteria, seven RCTs with a total of 441 patients were included in this study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the unilateral and bilateral groups. Our meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was detected between the two groups in terms of postoperative clinical function, fusion status, reoperation rate, complication rate, and hospital stay (p>0.05). Pooled estimates revealed that the unilateral group was associated with significantly reduced implant cost, operative time and blood loss (p<0.05).Conclusions/significancesOur meta-analysis suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation for lumbar diseases in selected patients. Despite these findings, our meta-analysis was based on studies with small sample size and different study characteristics that might lead to the inconsistent results such as various functional outcomes among the included studies. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are also needed to further clarify these issues and to provide the long-term outcomes.
| S-EPMC3906181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS:We conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI). RESULTS:56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF. CONCLUSIONS:The two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.
| S-EPMC6894220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is no available literature for comparison on muscle atrophy between the "stand-alone" oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and regular OLIF (i.e., combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation (PPSF) in patients with spondylolisthesis). This study aimed to identify changes in back muscle atrophy between the two surgeries. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent OLIF or OLIF+PPSF at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital and Shanghai ChangZheng Hospital between 07/2014 and 10/2017. Computed tomography (CT) was used to measure functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) and fat infiltration percentage (FIP) of the multifidus and erector spinae before and 24?months after surgery. RESULT:There were no differences in FCSA and FIP between OLIF (n?=?32) and OLIF+PPSF (n?=?41) groups before surgery. In the OLIF group, the multifidus and erector spinae FCSA and FIP did not change at 24?months (FCSA: multifidus: from 8.59?±?1.76 to 9.39?±?1.74?cm2, P?=?0.072; erector spinae: from 13.32?±?1.59 to 13.55?±?1.31?cm2, P?=?0.533) (FIP: multifidus: from 15.91?±?5.30% to 14.38?±?3.21%, P?=?0.721; erector spinae: from 11.63?±?3.05% to 11.22?±?3.12%, P?=?0.578). In the OLIF+PPSF group, the multifidus and erector spinae FCSA decreased (multifidus: from 7.72?±?2.69 to 5.67?±?1.71?cm2, P?<?0.001; erector spinae: from 12.60?±?2.04 to 10.15?±?1.82?cm2, P?<?0.001), while the FIP increased (multifidus: from 16.13?±?7.01% to 49.38?±?20.54%, P?<?0.001; erector spinae: from 11.93?±?3.22% to 22.60?±?4.99%, P?<?0.001). The differences of FCSA and FIP between the two groups at 24?months were significant (all P?<?0.001). The patients in the standalone OLIF group had better VAS back pain, and JOA scores than the patients in the OLIF combined group (all P?<?0.05) at 1?week and 3?months after surgery. There were two cases (4.9%) of adjacent segment degeneration in the OLIF combined group, while there was no case in the OLIF alone group. CONCLUSIONS:Standalone OLIF had better clinical outcomes at 1 week and 3 months than OLIF+PPSF in patients with spondylolisthesis. OLIF may not result in paraspinal muscle atrophy at 24?months after surgery.
| S-EPMC6961348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThere 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).MethodsUsing 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).ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionOur findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.
| S-EPMC8021835 | biostudies-literature
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:PurposeMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly popular for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disc diseases. The constructs intended for segmental stability are varied in MI-TLIF. We adopted finite element (FE) analysis to compare the stability after different construct fixations using interbody cage with posterior pedicle screw-rod or pedicle screw-plate instrumentation system.MethodsA L3-S1 FE model was modified to simulate decompression and fusion at L4-L5 segment. Fixation modes included unilateral plate (UP), unilateral rod (UR), bilateral plate (BP), bilateral rod (BR) and UP+UR fixation. The inferior surface of the S1 vertebra remained immobilized throughout the load simulation, and a bending moment of 7.5 Nm with 400N pre-load was applied on the L3 vertebra to recreate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM) and Von Mises stress were evaluated for intact and instrumentation models in all loading planes.ResultsAll reconstructive conditions displayed decreased motion at L4-L5. The pedicle screw-plate system offered equal ROM to pedicle screw-rod system in unilateral or bilateral fixation modes respectively. Pedicle screw stresses for plate system were 2.2 times greater than those for rod system in left lateral bending under unilateral fixation. Stresses for plate were 3.1 times greater than those for rod in right axial rotation under bilateral fixation. Stresses on intervertebral graft for plate system were similar to rod system in unilateral and bilateral fixation modes respectively. Increased ROM and posterior instrumentation stresses were observed in all loading modes with unilateral fixation compared with bilateral fixation in both systems.ConclusionsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion augmentation with pedicle screw-plate system fixation increases fusion construct stability equally to the pedicle screw-rod system. Increased posterior instrumentation stresses are observed in all loading modes with plate fixation, and bilateral fixation could reduce stress concentration.
| S-EPMC4674154 | biostudies-literature