Risk Factors Related to Superior Facet Joint Violation During Lumbar Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF)

2020 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. e716-e723
Author(s):  
Yiwei Zhao ◽  
Suomao Yuan ◽  
Yonghao Tian ◽  
Xinyu Liu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Facet Joint Violation

Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Samuel W. Terman ◽  
Rakesh Patel ◽  
Frank La Marca ◽  
Paul Park
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Object A reported risk factor for adjacent-segment disease is injury to the superior facet joint from pedicle screw placement. Given that the facet joint is not typically visualized during percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, there is a concern for increased facet violation (FV) in minimally invasive fusion procedures. The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the incidence of FV among patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The impact of O-arm navigation compared with traditional fluoroscopy on FV in MITLIF is also assessed, as are risk factors for FV. Methods The authors identified a consecutive population of patients who underwent MITLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw placement, as well as a matched cohort of patients who underwent open TLIF. Postoperative CT imaging was assessed to determine intraarticular FV due to pedicle screw placement. Patients were stratified into minimally invasive and open TLIF groups. Within the MITLIF group, the authors performed a subanalysis of image guidance methods used in cases of FV. Two-tailed Student t-test, ANOVA, chi-square testing, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 282 patients were identified, with a total of 564 superior pedicle screw placements. The MITLIF group consisted of 142 patients with 284 screw insertions. The open TLIF group consisted of 140 patients with 280 screw insertions. Overall, 21 (7.4%) of 282 patients experienced FV. A total of 21 screws violated a facet joint for a screw-based FV rate of 3.7% (21 of 564 screws). There were no significant differences between the MITLIF and open TLIF groups in the percentage of patients with FV (6.3% vs 8.6%) and or the percentage of screws with FV (3.2% vs 4.3%) (p = 0.475 and p = 0.484, respectively). Further stratifying the MI group into O-arm navigation and fluoroscopic guidance subgroups, the patient-based rates of FV were 10.8% (4 of 37 patients) and 4.8% (5 of 105 patients), respectively, and the screw-based rates of FV were 5.4% (4 of 74 screws) and 2.4% (5 of 210 screws), respectively. There was no significant difference between the subgroups with respect to patient-based or screw-based FV rates (p = 0.375 and p = 0.442, respectively). The O-arm group had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.021). BMI greater than 29.9 was independently associated with higher FV (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.65–8.53, p = 0.039). Conclusions The findings suggest that minimally invasive pedicle screw placement is not associated with higher rates of FV. Overall violation rates were similar in MITLIF and open TLIF. Higher BMI, however, was a risk factor for increased FV. The use of O-arm fluoroscopy with computer-assisted guidance did not significantly decrease the rate of FV.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Robot-Assisted Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement Under Regional Anaesthesia: A Comparative Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shangju Gao ◽  
Jingchao Wei ◽  
Wenyi Li ◽  
Long Zhang ◽  
Can Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Regional Anaesthesia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Placement ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

Abstract Background: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement is usually performed under general anaesthesia to keep the body still. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the robot-assisted technique under regional anaesthesia with conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous pedicle screw placement under general anaesthesia in minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery.Methods: Patients who underwent robot-assisted percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) or fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) from December 2017 to February 2020 in a single centre were included. Based on the method of percutaneous pedicle screw placement used, patients were divided into the robot-assisted under regional anaesthesia (group RE-RO) and fluoroscopy-guided under general anaesthesia (group GE-FLU) groups. The primary outcome measures were screw accuracy and the incidence of facet joint violation (FJV). Secondary outcome measures included X-ray exposure and intraoperative adverse events.Results: Eighteen patients were included in group RE-RO, and 23 patients were included in group GE-FLU. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws (Gertzbein and Robbins grades A and B) were 94.4% and 91.5%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentages of clinically acceptable screws (p=0.44) or overall Gertzbein and Robbins screw accuracy grades (p=0.35). Only the top screws were included in the analysis of FJVs. The percentages of FJV (Babu grades 1, 2 and 3) were 5.6% and 28.3%, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.01). Overall, the FJV grades in group RE-RO were significantly better than those in group GE-FLU (p=0.009). The mean fluoroscopy time for each screw in group RE-RO was significantly shorter than that in group GE-FLU (group RE-RO, 5.4±1.9 seconds, group GE-FLU, 6.8±2.0 seconds; P=0.03). The intraoperative adverse events included 1 case of registration failure and 1 case of guide-wire dislodgment in group RE-RO as well as 2 cases of screw misplacement in group GE-FLU. No complications related to anaesthesia were observed.Conclusion: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement under regional anaesthesia can be performed effectively and safely. The accuracy is comparable to the conventional technique. Moreover, this technique has the advantage of fewer FJVs and a lower radiation time.

scholarly journals Instrumentation-related complications of lumbar degenerative disc diseases treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyu Yang ◽  
Xinyu Liu
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Neurological Deficit ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Disc ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Superior Level

Objective: To analyze the instrumentation-related complications of patients with lumbar degenerative disc diseases (LDD) who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS- TLIF) and to discuss the potential strategy for the control of these complications. Methods: A total of 87 patients with LDD were treated with the MIS-TLIF procedure. Complications, including malposition or breakage of guide pin, percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) or cages, neurological deficit, and superior-level facet joint violations, were determined during and after the surgery. Computed tomography (CT) was used to evaluate the PPS accuracy and the superior-level facet joint violations. Results: A total of 386 PPSs were used. During the surgery, 3 (0.8%) guide pin and 1 (0.3%) PPS perforated the anterior wall of the vertebral body, respectively. One (0.3%) PPS was pulled out during the reduction of slip. Malposition of the cages occurred in 6 (1.6%) PPSs. These were all adjusted accordingly during the surgery. All the patients received > 2 years of follow-up. No loosening or breakage of PPS and cage was observed, but CT showed 27 (7.0%) PPSs misplaced. No neurological deficit related to misplaced PPS was observed. The total facet joint violation (FJV) rate was 36.2%, with grade 2 and grade 3 violations is 21 (12.1%) and 6 (3.4%), respectively. Conclusion: MIS-TLIF has similar instrumentation-related complications with open TLIF. Accurate preoperative evaluation and improved surgical techniques can effectively reduce these instrumentation-related complications.

Minimally invasive unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of spinal stenosis and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (v2supplement) ◽  
pp. Video4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Chen ◽  
Khoi D. Than ◽  
Frank LaMarca ◽  
Paul Park
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Unilateral Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw

This video describes a minimally invasive approach for treatment of symptomatic grade I spondylolisthesis and high-grade spinal stenosis. In this procedure, a unilateral approach for bilateral decompression is utilized in conjunction with a modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. The key steps in the procedure are outlined, and include positioning, fluoroscopic positioning/guidance, exposure with tubular retractor system, technique for ipsilateral and contra-lateral decompression, disc space preparation and interbody grafting, percutaneous pedicle screw and rod placement, and closure.The video can be found here: http://youtu.be/QTymO4Cu4B0.

scholarly journals Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will F. Beringer ◽  
Jean-Pierre Mobasser
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Instrumentation ◽  
Percutaneous Pedicle Screw ◽  
Unilateral Pedicle Screw

Object Clinical and radiographic results were assessed to determine the clinical outcomes and fusion rate in eight consecutive patients selected for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which a percutaneous pedicle screw system was used unilaterally. Methods Eight patients underwent one-level, minimally invasive TLIF in which a percutaneous pedicle screw system was used only on the side where facets were removed for interbody access. Clinical, economic, functional, and radiographic data were recorded preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. The mean 6-month change in the modified Prolo Scale score was 7, and osseous interbody bridging assessed on coronal and sagittal computerized tomography studies was seen in all patients. Conclusions The use of unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation for the minimally invasive TLIF procedure provides excellent clinical results and is an option in selected patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document