Changes in Paraspinal Muscles and Facet Joints after Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Cortical Bone Trajectory Technique: A Prospective Study

In this prospective cohort study, we aimed to determine the surgical and adjacent segment changes in paraspinal muscles and facet joints in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique. We enrolled 30 consecutive patients who underwent the single-level CBT technique between October 2017 and October 2018. We evaluated preoperative and 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative clinical data including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed a year after surgery. The erector spinae (ES) muscle area, volume, and fat infiltration (FI) on the surgical and adjacent segments were evaluated using the thresholding method, and the degree of adjacent facet joint degeneration was calculated using the Weishaupt scale. FI rate was graded using the Kjaer method. All patients underwent a 12-month follow-up. The VAS and ODI scores significantly improved after surgery in all patients. No patient showed degeneration of the adjacent facet joints ( P > 0.05 ) during the 1-year follow-up postoperation. There was no significant difference in ES muscle volume, area, and FI on the surgical and adjacent segments ( P > 0.05 ). The FI rate of the upper ES muscles increased postoperatively ( P < 0.05 ); however, there were no significant changes in FI rate of the lower ES muscles. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis could obtain satisfactory short-term clinical outcomes via minimally invasive PLIF using the CBT technique. Moreover, this technique may reduce the impact on the paravertebral muscles, especially the ES muscle, and the adjacent facet joints.

Process Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in Five Dutch Hospitals: A Qualitative Analysis

Background and Objectives: Only limited qualitative research concerning instrumented spine surgeries has been published, despite the increasing number of these surgeries and the evident importance of qualitative analysis of the processes surrounding these complex interventions. Current qualitative research is mainly limited to the experiences, emotions and expectations of patients. Insight into the full process, including experiences from the perspective of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals, remains scarce. Materials and Methods: Data were gathered by means of semi-structured face-to-face interviews. In total, there were 27 participants, including 11 patients, 7 informal caregivers and 9 healthcare professionals. The interview process was audiotaped, and each interview was transcribed verbatim. To systematically analyse the gathered data, software for qualitative analysis (NVivo) was used. After immersion in the raw data of transcripts and field notes, a list of broad categories for organising the data into meaningful clusters for analysis was developed. All interviews were coded by the first author, and 25% was independently assessed by the second author. Results: The results of our study describe several promoting and limiting factors concerning the process of lumbar fusion surgery from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers. The most frequently mentioned promoting factors were: information and opportunities to ask questions during consultations; multidisciplinary consultations; good communication and guidance during hospitalization; and follow-up appointments. The most frequently mentioned limiting factors were: lack of educational material; lack of guidance and communication prior to, during and after hospitalisation. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied with the current healthcare-process in lumbar fusion surgery. However, we found that lack of educational material and guidance during the process led to insecurity about complaints, surgery and recovery. To improve the process of lumbar interbody fusion and to increase patient satisfaction, healthcare providers should focus on guiding and educating patients and informal caregivers about the pre-operative trajectory, the surgery and the recovery. From the healthcare providers’ perspective, the process could be improved by multidisciplinary consultations and a dedicated spine team in the operation room. Although this study focusses on lumbar fusion surgery, results could be translated to other fields of spine surgery and surgery in general.

Robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-institution, observational, case-control study

OBJECTIVE The use of robotics in spinal surgery has gained popularity because of its promising accuracy and safety. ROSA is a commonly used surgical robot system for spinal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between robot-guided and freehand fluoroscopy-guided instrumentation in minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS This retrospective consecutive series reviewed 224 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF from March 2019 to April 2020 at a single institution. All patients were diagnosed with degenerative pathologies. Of those, 75 patients underwent robot-guided MIS-TLIF, and 149 patients underwent freehand fluoroscopy-guided MIS-TLIF. The incidences of pedicle breach, intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and short-term pain control were compared. RESULTS The patients who underwent robot-guided surgery had a lower incidence of pedicle breach (0.27% vs 1.75%, p = 0.04) and less operative blood loss (313.7 ± 214.1 mL vs 431.6 ± 529.8 mL, p = 0.019). Nonsignificant differences were observed in operative duration (280.7 ± 98.1 minutes vs 251.4 ± 112.0 minutes, p = 0.056), hospital stay (6.6 ± 3.4 days vs 7.3 ± 4.4 days, p = 0.19), complications (intraoperative, 1.3% vs 1.3%, p = 0.45; postoperative surgery-related, 4.0% vs 4.0%, p = 0.99), and short-term pain control (postoperative day 1, 2.1 ± 1.2 vs 1.8 ± 1.2, p = 0.144; postoperative day 30, 1.2 ± 0.5 vs 1.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.610). A shorter operative duration for 4-level spinal surgery was found in the robot-guided surgery group (388.7 ± 107.3 minutes vs 544.0 ± 128.5 minutes, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS This retrospective review revealed that patients who underwent robot-guided MIS-TLIF experienced less operative blood loss. They also benefited from a shorter operative duration with higher-level (> 3 levels) spinal surgery. The postoperative outcomes were similar for both robot-guided and freehand fluoroscopy-guided procedures.