Low profile posterior lumbar-sacral interbody fusion for lumbosacral degenerative diseases: a technical note.
Low-profile
Minimally invasive
Posterior lumbosacral interbody fusion
Surgical technique
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Nov 2023
14 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
05
07
2023
accepted:
26
10
2023
medline:
15
11
2023
pubmed:
14
11
2023
entrez:
14
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to report our surgical experience in patients with lumbosacral degenerative diseases who underwent posterior decompression and interbody fusion fixed with cortical bone trajectory screw and sacral alar screw, which is known as low-profile posterior lumbosacral interbody fusion (LP-PLSIF). Patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease who underwent LP-PLSIF and traditional PLSIF (control group) internally fixed with pedicle screws were included retrospectively. Patients' demographic data, operative parameters, and perioperative complications were recorded and analyzed. A total of 18 patients were enrolled in this study, which included 9 patients (5 male and 4 female) who underwent LP-PLSIF, and 9 patients (4 male and 5 female) who underwent traditional PLSIF. There wasn't a significant difference in the average age between the two groups, 56.78 ± 10.92 years in the LP-PLSIF group and 60.22 ± 8.21 years in the PLSIF group (p = 0.460). The bone mineral density (BMD) of the two groups of patients were -2.00 ± 0.26 T and -2.13 ± 0.19 T, respectively (P = 0.239). The mean postoperative follow-up time was 12.7 months (range, 12-14 months). The mean operation time was 142.78 ± 11.21 min and 156.11 ± 13.41 min in the LP-PLSIF group and PLSIF group respectively (P < 0.05). The average blood loss was 137.78 ± 37.09 ml in the LP-PLSIF group, and 150.00 ± 27.84 ml in the PLSIF group (P = 0.441). The average postoperative drainage was 85.56 ± 37.45 ml and 122.22 ± 22.24 ml in the LP-PLSIF group and control group respectively (P < 0.05). Patients in the LP-PLSIF group had shorter incision length compared with the control group, 61.44 ± 10.56 mm vs. 74.56 ± 10.22 mm (P < 0.05). The average length of hospitalization of 11.33 ± 2.92 days in the LP-PLSIF group, and 11.11 ± 1.62 days in the PLSIF group (p = 0.844). All patients had significant improvement in VAS pain score, ODI, and JOA evaluation. However, patients in the LP-PLSIF group had better improvement in terms of VAS back pain and ODI in the short term after the operation. There were no neurological complications or wound infection. The fusion rate at the last follow-up was 100% (9 of 9) in the LP-PLSIF group, and 88.89% (8 of 9) in the control group based on CT scans. 1 patient in the control group had asymptomatic sacral pedicle screw loosening. LP-PLSIF is a safe and effective surgical technique for patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease, which has the potential strength of less invasive and better clinical improvement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to report our surgical experience in patients with lumbosacral degenerative diseases who underwent posterior decompression and interbody fusion fixed with cortical bone trajectory screw and sacral alar screw, which is known as low-profile posterior lumbosacral interbody fusion (LP-PLSIF).
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease who underwent LP-PLSIF and traditional PLSIF (control group) internally fixed with pedicle screws were included retrospectively. Patients' demographic data, operative parameters, and perioperative complications were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 18 patients were enrolled in this study, which included 9 patients (5 male and 4 female) who underwent LP-PLSIF, and 9 patients (4 male and 5 female) who underwent traditional PLSIF. There wasn't a significant difference in the average age between the two groups, 56.78 ± 10.92 years in the LP-PLSIF group and 60.22 ± 8.21 years in the PLSIF group (p = 0.460). The bone mineral density (BMD) of the two groups of patients were -2.00 ± 0.26 T and -2.13 ± 0.19 T, respectively (P = 0.239). The mean postoperative follow-up time was 12.7 months (range, 12-14 months). The mean operation time was 142.78 ± 11.21 min and 156.11 ± 13.41 min in the LP-PLSIF group and PLSIF group respectively (P < 0.05). The average blood loss was 137.78 ± 37.09 ml in the LP-PLSIF group, and 150.00 ± 27.84 ml in the PLSIF group (P = 0.441). The average postoperative drainage was 85.56 ± 37.45 ml and 122.22 ± 22.24 ml in the LP-PLSIF group and control group respectively (P < 0.05). Patients in the LP-PLSIF group had shorter incision length compared with the control group, 61.44 ± 10.56 mm vs. 74.56 ± 10.22 mm (P < 0.05). The average length of hospitalization of 11.33 ± 2.92 days in the LP-PLSIF group, and 11.11 ± 1.62 days in the PLSIF group (p = 0.844). All patients had significant improvement in VAS pain score, ODI, and JOA evaluation. However, patients in the LP-PLSIF group had better improvement in terms of VAS back pain and ODI in the short term after the operation. There were no neurological complications or wound infection. The fusion rate at the last follow-up was 100% (9 of 9) in the LP-PLSIF group, and 88.89% (8 of 9) in the control group based on CT scans. 1 patient in the control group had asymptomatic sacral pedicle screw loosening.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
LP-PLSIF is a safe and effective surgical technique for patients with lumbosacral degenerative disease, which has the potential strength of less invasive and better clinical improvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37957682
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06993-8
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06993-8
pmc: PMC10644593
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
885Subventions
Organisme : National Clinical Medical Research Center of Orthopedics and Sports Rehabilitation Innovation Fund
ID : 2021-NCRC-CXJJ-PY-17
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
World Neurosurg. 2017 May;101:216-226
pubmed: 28189865
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Mar 1;34(2):E112-E120
pubmed: 33633068
Neurosurgery. 2012 Nov;71(5):962-70
pubmed: 22843132
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Sep 15;26(18):1976-83
pubmed: 11547195
Front Surg. 2022 Oct 05;9:989119
pubmed: 36277279
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Jun;17(6 Suppl):S196-203
pubmed: 1631718
J Med Invest. 2014;61(3-4):388-92
pubmed: 25264059
Clin Interv Aging. 2022 Feb 23;17:175-184
pubmed: 35237030
J Neurosurg Spine. 2022 Aug 26;38(1):107-114
pubmed: 36029265
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Feb 15;39(4):E240-5
pubmed: 24253778
Eur Spine J. 2020 Sep;29(9):2143-2163
pubmed: 32095908
J Neurosurg Spine. 2020 Mar 20;:1-6
pubmed: 32197252
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010 Dec;23(8):506-12
pubmed: 20124912
Global Spine J. 2019 Feb;9(1):55-61
pubmed: 30775209
Neurosurgery. 2021 Feb 16;88(3):603-611
pubmed: 33372223
World J Clin Cases. 2022 Dec 26;10(36):13179-13188
pubmed: 36683619
Spine J. 2009 May;9(5):366-73
pubmed: 18790684
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2022 Oct 7;12(4):e21.00044
pubmed: 36743282
J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Oct;23(4):471-8
pubmed: 26161515
Pain Res Manag. 2022 Jan 12;2022:2690291
pubmed: 35069954
Orthop Surg. 2013 Feb;5(1):56-9
pubmed: 23420749
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Jun 13;21(1):361
pubmed: 34120598
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Sep 10;21(1):605
pubmed: 32912278
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023 Mar 14;11:1148342
pubmed: 36998811
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 May 20;23(1):480
pubmed: 35596180
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Oct 15;39(22):E1297-302
pubmed: 25099320
Asian Spine J. 2017 Oct;11(5):817-831
pubmed: 29093793