A Prospective Comparison of the Impact of Instrument Tracking on Time and Radiation during Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farah Hamouda ◽  
Timothy Y. Wang ◽  
Mostafa Gabr ◽  
Vikram A. Mehta ◽  
Alexia M. Bwensa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Prospective Comparison ◽  
Instrument Tracking ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. E12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc L. Schröder ◽  
Victor E. Staartjes
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Ability To Work ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Screw Malposition

OBJECTIVEThe accuracy of robot-guided pedicle screw placement has been proven to be high, but little is known about the impact of such guidance on clinical outcomes such as the rate of revision surgeries for screw malposition. In addition, there are very few data about the impact of robot-guided fusion on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Thus, the clinical benefit for the patient is unclear. In this study, the authors analyzed revision rates for screw malposition and changes in PROs following minimally invasive robot-guided pedicle screw fixation.METHODSA retrospective cohort study of patients who had undergone minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MI-PLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed. Patients were followed up clinically at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment and by mailed questionnaire in March 2016 as a final follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), screw revisions, and socio-demographic factors were analyzed. A literature review was performed, comparing the incidence of intraoperative screw revisions and revision surgery for screw malposition in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand fusion procedures.RESULTSSeventy-two patients fit the study inclusion criteria and had a mean follow up of 32 ± 17 months. No screws had to be revised intraoperatively, and no revision surgery for screw malposition was needed. In the literature review, the authors found a higher rate of intraoperative screw revisions in the navigated pool than in the robot-guided pool (p < 0.001, OR 9.7). Additionally, a higher incidence of revision surgery for screw malposition was observed for freehand procedures than for the robot-guided procedures (p < 0.001, OR 8.1). The VAS score for back pain improved significantly from 66.9 ± 25.0 preoperatively to 30.1 ± 26.8 at the final follow-up, as did the VAS score for leg pain (from 70.6 ± 22.8 to 24.3 ± 28.3) and ODI (from 43.4 ± 18.3 to 16.2 ± 16.7; all p < 0.001). Undergoing PLIF, a high body mass index, smoking status, and a preoperative ability to work were identified as predictors of a reduction in back pain. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 days and operating time was 161 ± 50 minutes. Ability to work increased from 38.9% to 78.2% of patients (p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, and 89.1% of patients indicated they would choose to undergo the same treatment again.CONCLUSIONSIn adults with low-grade spondylolisthesis, the data demonstrated a benefit in using robotic guidance to reduce the rate of revision surgery for screw malposition as compared with other techniques of pedicle screw insertion described in peer-reviewed publications. Larger comparative studies are required to assess differences in PROs following a minimally invasive approach in spinal fusion surgeries compared with other techniques.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Mladen Djurasovic ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Kirk Owens ◽  
Morgan Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Direct Costs ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.

scholarly journals Radiological Assessment of Postoperative Paraspinal Muscle Changes After Lumbar Interbody Fusion With or Without Minimally Invasive Techniques

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822199479
Author(s):  
Keigo Kameyama ◽  
Tetsuro Ohba ◽  
Tomoka Endo ◽  
Marina Katsu ◽  
Fujita Koji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Paraspinal Muscle ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Paraspinal Muscles ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Muscle Density ◽  
Muscle Changes

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Background: Percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) have the advantage of being able to better preserve the paraspinal muscles when compared with a traditional open approach. However, the nature of changes in postoperative paraspinal muscle after damage by lumbar fusion surgery has remained largely unknown. It is clinically important to clarify and compare changes in paraspinal muscles after the various surgeries. Objective: (1) To determine postoperative changes of muscle density and cross-sectional area using computed tomography (CT), and (2) to compare paraspinal muscle changes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with traditional open approaches and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF) with PPS. Methods: We included data from 39 consecutive female patients who underwent open PLIF and 23 consecutive patients who underwent single-staged treatment with LLIF followed by posterior PPS fixation at a single level (L4-5). All patients underwent preoperative, 6 months postoperative, and 1-year postoperative CT imaging. Measurements of the cross-sectional area (CSA) and muscle densities of paraspinal muscles were obtained using regions of interest defined by manual tracing. Results: We did not find any decrease of CSA in any paraspinal muscles. We did find a decrease of muscle density in the multifidus at 1 year after surgery in patients in the PILF group, but not in those in LLIF/PPS group. Conclusions: One year after surgery, a significant postoperative decrease of muscle density of the multifidi was observed only in patients who underwent open PLIF, but not in those who underwent LLIF/PPS.

scholarly journals Microendoscopy-assisted extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treating single-level spondylodesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Motohide Shibayama ◽  
Guang Hua Li ◽  
Li Guo Zhu ◽  
Zenya Ito ◽  
Fujio Ito
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Canal ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Single Level

Abstract Background Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard technique for treating degenerative lumbar disorders involving instability. Due to its invasiveness, a minimally invasive technique, extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF), was introduced. On surgically approaching posterolaterally, the posterior muscles and spinal canal are barely invaded. Despite its theoretical advantage, ELIF is technically demanding and has not been popularised. Therefore, we developed a microendoscopy-assisted ELIF (mELIF) technique which was designed to be safe and less invasive. Here, we aimed to report on the surgical technique and clinical results. Methods Using a posterolateral approach similar to that of lateral disc herniation surgery, a tubular retractor, 16 or 18 mm in diameter, was placed at the lateral aspect of the facet joint. The facet joint was partially excised, and the disc space was cleaned. A cage and local bone graft were inserted into the disc space. All disc-related procedures were performed under microendoscopy. The spinal canal was not invaded. Bilateral percutaneous screw-rod constructs were inserted and fixed. Results Fifty-five patients underwent the procedure. The Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale scores greatly improved. Over 90% of the patients obtained excellent or good results based on Macnab’s criteria. There were neither major adverse clinical effects nor the need for additional surgery. Conclusions mELIF is minimally invasive because the spinal canal and posterior muscles are barely invaded. It produces good clinical results with fewer complications. This technique can be applied in most single-level spondylodesis cases, including those involving L5/S1 disorders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document