scholarly journals Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Epidural Anesthesia: Technical Note and Initial Clinical Experience with One-Year Follow-Up

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 3815-3826
Author(s):  
Chao Jiang ◽  
Si Yin ◽  
Jianmin Wei ◽  
Weigong Zhao ◽  
Xiaohui Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Epidural Anesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
One Year ◽  
Initial Clinical Experience

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using an En-Bloc Resected Lamina as an Interbody Spacer in Combination with Spinal Instruments

1998 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 325-332
Author(s):  
Shigeru Hirabayashi ◽  
Kiyoshi Kumano ◽  
Takeshi Uchida
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Spinal Instrumentation ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Bony Union ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Time Of Operation

We developed a new method of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using an en-bloc resected lamina with or without a hydroxyapatite block as an interbody spacer instead of auto-iliac bone, in combination with rigid-type spinal instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of our method. There were 23 patients (13 males, 10 females, age at the time of operation: 21–71 years, mean 50.5 years; follow-up: 1–4 years, mean 2 years and 3 months). In 10 patients with spondylolitic spondylolisthesis and 3 patients with spondylolysis, the floating lamina was resected enbloc by mid-line splitting. In 7 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and 3 patients with unstable spine, a cleavage was made at the isthmus and then the complex of lamina and inferior spinous process was resected en-bloc. Seventeen patients with olisthesis underwent reduction. PLIF was performed at the L4/L5 level in 10 patients and the L5/S1 level in 13 patients. Sixteen patients with preoperative low back pain recovered, except for one patient with instability at the adjacent vertebra. All of the seven patients with preoperative gait disturbance recovered. The ratio of olisthesis changed from preoperative 30% to postoperative 18% on average. Good bony union was obtained in both the patients with and those without a hydroxyapatite spacer. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using an en-bloc resected lamina as an interbody spacer in combination with rigid-type spinal instrumentation was useful.

Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Kenji Ohzono ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
The Mean

Object A systematic review concerning surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) showed that a satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with adjunctive spinal fusion than with decompression alone. However, the role of adjunctive fusion and the optimal type of fusion remain controversial. Therefore, operative management for multilevel DS raises more complicated issues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to elucidate clinical and radiological outcomes after 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS with the least bias in determination of operative procedure. Methods Since 2005, all patients surgically treated for lumbar DS at the authors' hospital have been treated using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screws, irrespective of severity of slippage, patient age, or bone quality. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 20 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS and had been followed up for 2 years or longer (2-level PLIF group). They also analyzed data from 92 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent single-level PLIF for single-level DS during the same time period and had been followed for at least 2 years (1-level PLIF group). This second group served as a control. Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Fusion status and sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine were assessed by comparing serial plain radiographs. Surgery-related complications and the need for additional surgery were evaluated. Results The mean JOA score improved significantly from 12.8 points before surgery to 20.4 points at the latest follow-up in the 2-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 51.8%), and from 14.2 points preoperatively to 22.5 points at the latest follow-up in the single-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 55.3%). At the final follow-up, 95.0% of patients in the 2-level PLIF group and 96.7% of those in the 1-level PLIF group had achieved solid spinal fusion, and the mean sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine was more lordotic than before surgery in both groups. Early surgery-related complications, including transient neurological complications, occurred in 6 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (30.0%) and 11 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (12.0%). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was found in 4 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (20.0%) and 10 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (10.9%). Conclusions The clinical outcome of 2-level PLIF for 2-level lumbar DS was satisfactory, although surgery-related complications including symptomatic adjacent-segment disease were not negligible.

scholarly journals Cortical Bone Trajectory Screws in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Maximal Muscle Sparing—A Prospective Comparative Study with the Traditional Open Technique

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Marengo ◽  
Marco Ajello ◽  
Michele Federico Pecoraro ◽  
Giulia Pilloni ◽  
Giovanni Vercelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
One Year ◽  
Muscular Damage

Introduction. A prospective comparative study between classical posterior interbody fusion with peduncular screws and the new technique with divergent cortical screws was conducted. Material and Methods. Only patients with monosegmental degenerative disease were recruited into this study. We analyzed a cohort of 40 patients treated from January 2015 to March 2016 divided into 2 groups (20 patients went to traditional open surgery and 20 patients under mini-invasive strategy). Primary endpoints of this study are fusion rate and muscular damage; secondary endpoints analyzed were three different clinical scores (ODI, VAS, and EQ) and the morbidity rate of both techniques. Results. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between the two techniques. In addition, a significant difference in muscular damage was found according to the MRI evaluation. Clinical outcomes, based on pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index status, and Euroquality-5D score, were found to be also statistically different, even one year after surgery. This study also demonstrated a correlation between patients’ muscular damage and their clinical outcome. Conclusions. Cortical bone trajectory screws would provide similar outcomes compared to pedicle screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion at one year after surgery, and this technique represents a reasonable alternative to pedicle screws.

scholarly journals Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Masayoshi Fukushima ◽  
Nozomu Ohtomo ◽  
Michita Noma ◽  
Yudai Kumanomido ◽  
Hiroyuki Nakarai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Disease ◽  
Radiographic Findings ◽  
One Year

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.

scholarly journals Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 591-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Yusuke Kuroda ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Recovery Rate ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cortical Bone Trajectory

OBJECTIVE Several biomechanical studies have demonstrated the favorable mechanical properties of the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw. However, no reports have examined surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with CBT screw fixation for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) compared with those after PLIF using traditional pedicle screw (PS) fixation. The purposes of this study were thus to elucidate surgical outcomes after PLIF with CBT screw fixation for DS and to compare these results with those after PLIF using traditional PS fixation. METHODS Ninety-five consecutive patients underwent PLIF with CBT screw fixation for DS (CBT group; mean followup 35 months). A historical control group consisted of 82 consecutive patients who underwent PLIF with traditional PS fixation (PS group; mean follow-up 40 months). Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale score. Fusion status was assessed by dynamic plain radiographs and CT. The need for additional surgery and surgery-related complications was also evaluated. RESULTS The mean JOA score improved significantly from 13.7 points before surgery to 23.3 points at the latest follow-up in the CBT group (mean recovery rate 64.4%), compared with 14.4 points preoperatively to 22.7 points at final follow-up in the PS group (mean recovery rate 55.8%; p < 0.05). Solid spinal fusion was achieved in 84 patients from the CBT group (88.4%) and in 79 patients from the PS group (96.3%, p > 0.05). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease developed in 3 patients from the CBT group (3.2%) compared with 9 patients from the PS group (11.0%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS PLIF with CBT screw fixation for DS provided comparable improvement of clinical symptoms with PLIF using traditional PS fixation. However, the successful fusion rate tended to be lower in the CBT group than in the PS group, although the difference was not statistically significant between the 2 groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document