Comparison of O-arm Navigation and Microscope-assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

Overview

Journal J Orthop Translat

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2020 Jan 8

PMID 31908941

Citations 17

Authors

Peng Peng

Kangwu Chen

Hao Chen

Kai Zhang

Jiajia Sun

Peng Yang

Feng Zhou

Yu Liu

Huilin Yang

Haiqing Mao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The 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 Methods: Forty 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.

Results: The operation time in the modified MIS-TLIF group was longer than the conventional TLIF group ( < 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss in the modified MIS-TLIF group was less than the comparative group ( < 0.05). The average bed rest time and hospitalisation stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group was shorter than conventional TLIF group ( < 0.05). The screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was more precisely than that in the conventional TLIF group ( < 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 ( < 0.05). There was no difference in the VAS and ODI score between the two group at the last follow-up ( > 0.05).

Conclusion: Navigation 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 Article: Compared 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.

Citing Articles

Mid-term efficacy of non-contact orthopedic robot navigation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Gu X, Zhang S, Liu Y, Qi J, Gu Y, Ma W BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):898.

PMID: 39516738 PMC: 11549833. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-08019-3.

Successful Arthrodesis Using a Blended Allograft and Autograft Mixture in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Case Series.

Fiechter J, Baumann A, Smith M Cureus. 2024; 16(9):e69476.

PMID: 39416547 PMC: 11483177. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.69476.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in China: study protocol for a prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Wu Z, Luo T, Yang Y, Pang M, Chen R, Xie P BMJ Open. 2024; 14(9):e083786.

PMID: 39322595 PMC: 11425936. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083786.

Navigation-Guided C-arm-Free Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative Study of Cage Orientation and Screw Insertion Accuracy Against the Conventional C-arm-Assisted Technique.

Uotani K, Tanaka M, Kumawat C, Gunjotikar S, Oda Y, Shinohara K Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e66070.

PMID: 39224725 PMC: 11368022. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66070.

The Impact of Navigation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Study of Historical Aspects, Current Techniques and Future Directions.

Heydar A, Tanaka M, Prabhu S, Komatsubara T, Arataki S, Yashiro S J Clin Med. 2024; 13(16).

PMID: 39200805 PMC: 11354833. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13164663.

References

Soeters P . The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program: benefit and concerns. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017; 106(1):10-11. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.117.159897. View

Tian W, Xu Y, Liu B, Liu Y, He D, Yuan Q . Computer-assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Be Better Than Open Surgery for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Disease. Clin Spine Surg. 2017; 30(6):237-242. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000165. View

Barbagallo G, Piccini M, Alobaid A, Al-Mutair A, Albanese V, Certo F . Bilateral tubular minimally invasive surgery for low-dysplastic lumbosacral lytic spondylolisthesis (LDLLS): analysis of a series focusing on postoperative sagittal balance and review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23 Suppl 6:705-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3543-0. View

Jin M, Liu Z, Liu X, Yan H, Han X, Qiu Y . Does intraoperative navigation improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the apical region of dystrophic scoliosis secondary to neurofibromatosis type I: comparison between O-arm navigation and free-hand technique. Eur Spine J. 2015; 25(6):1729-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4012-0. View

Tow B, Yue W, Srivastava A, Lai J, Guo C, Wearn Peng B . Does Navigation Improve Accuracy of Placement of Pedicle Screws in Single-level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?: A Comparison Between Free-hand and Three-dimensional O-Arm Navigation Techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(8):E472-7. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a9435e. View

. Development of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach for lumbar spinal fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016; 26(4):411-418. DOI: 10.3171/2016.9.SPINE16375. View

Soffin E, Vaishnav A, Wetmore D, Barber L, Hill P, Gang C . Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Spine Surgery: Initial Experience. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 44(9):E561-E570. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002905. View

Brodano G, Martikos K, Lolli F, Gasbarrini A, Cioni A, Bandiera S . Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I: Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(10):E559-64. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000034. View

Kleck C, Johnson C, Akiyama M, Burger E, Cain C, Patel V . One-step Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Using O-Arm and Stealth Navigation. Clin Spine Surg. 2018; 31(5):197-202. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000616. View

10.

Archavlis E, Carvi Y Nievas M . Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(8):1731-40. PMC: 3731495. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2732-6. View

11.

Wang Y, Chen K, Chen H, Zhang K, Lu J, Mao H . Comparison between free-hand and O-arm-based navigated posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly cohorts with three-level lumbar degenerative disease. Int Orthop. 2018; 43(2):351-357. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4005-9. View

12.

Chen Y, Zhang L, Li E, Ding L, Zhang G, Hou Y . Comparison of Posterolateral Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolithesis: A Meta-Analysis. J Invest Surg. 2018; 32(4):290-297. DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2017.1411543. View

13.

Lee K, Yue W, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan S . Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(11):2265-70. PMC: 3481101. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4. View

14.

Barbagallo G, Certo F, Sciacca G, Albanese V . Bilateral tubular minimally invasive approach for decompression, reduction and fixation in lumbosacral lythic spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2013; 35(2 Suppl):Video 9. DOI: 10.3171/2013.V2.FOCUS13196. View

15.

Laine T, Lund T, Ylikoski M, Lohikoski J, Schlenzka D . Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion with and without computer assistance: a randomised controlled clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J. 2000; 9(3):235-40. PMC: 3611394. DOI: 10.1007/s005860000146. View

16.

Parker S, McGirt M, Farber S, Amin A, Rick A, Suk I . Accuracy of free-hand pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine: analysis of 6816 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery. 2010; 68(1):170-8. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181fdfaf4. View

17.

Petraco D, Spivak J, Cappadona J, Kummer F, Neuwirth M . An anatomic evaluation of L5 nerve stretch in spondylolisthesis reduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21(10):1133-8; discussion 1139. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199605150-00002. View

18.

Jin-Tao Q, Yu T, Mei W, Xu-Dong T, Tian-Jian Z, Guo-Hua S . Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(5):1058-65. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3890-5. View

19.

Basques B, Golinvaux N, Bohl D, Yacob A, Toy J, Varthi A . Use of an operating microscope during spine surgery is associated with minor increases in operating room times and no increased risk of infection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39(22):1910-6. PMC: 4192002. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000558. View

20.

Jin M, Liu Z, Qiu Y, Yan H, Han X, Zhu Z . Incidence and risk factors for the misplacement of pedicle screws in scoliosis surgery assisted by O-arm navigation-analysis of a large series of one thousand, one hundred and forty five screws. Int Orthop. 2016; 41(4):773-780. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3353-6. View