The Journal of Practical Medicine >
Surgical strategy and early efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis
Received date: 2024-04-23
Online published: 2024-10-22
Objective To investigate the efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis complicated with osteoporosis. Methods From June 2021 to June 2022, 36 cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis complicated with osteoporosis were treated with BE-LIF, including 9 males and 27 females, aged (65.94 ± 6.83) years (range: 51 ~ 76 years). All were single segment, and the responsible segment was L3/4 in 4 cases, L4/5 in 26 cases, and L5/S1 in 6 cases. Imagingexamination showed 1 and 2 degree of spondylolisthesis in 28 and 8 cases, and degenerative and ischemic spondylolisthesis in 24 and 12 cases respectively. Preoperative average bone mineral density T value of the lumbar spine was (-3.19 ± 0.82) SD, and T value of the femur (-2.26 ± 0.86) SD. Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate lumbar spine function; visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate low back pain and leg pain. ODI, VAS of low back and leg pain were recorded respectively before the operation, at discharge and at the last follow-up. MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the surgical efficacy at the last follow-up. The anterior and posterior disc height, segmental lordotic angle and percentage of slip were measured on the lateral lumbar X-ray films before and after the operation. All patients received standard anti-osteoporosis treatment after surgery. Results All patients completed the operation in one stage. The average operation time was (160.97 ± 35.01) min (range: 105~245 min), and the average intraoperative blood loss was (72.50 ± 47.53) ml (range: 20 ~ 150 mL). The mean follow-up time was (15.17 ± 6.53) months (range: 6 ~ 26 months). There were statistically significant differences in both VAS score of back and leg and ODI score at discharge and last follow-up when compared with those before the surgery (F = 107.48, 103.66, 55.52, P < 0.001). Macnab criteria of the last follow-up showed excellent in 21 cases, good in 12 cases, fair in 3 cases, and the excellent and good rate was 91.7%. Radiographic results showed that the height of the anterior and posterior disc height, segmental lordotic angle and percentage of slip were all improved immediately after surgery and at the last follow-up when compared with those before operation, but the anterior and posterior disc height, segmental lordotic angle at the last follow-up were decreased comparing with those immediate after the operation; the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The fusion rate at the last follow-up was 91.7% (33/36). The complication rate was 13.8% (5/36), including 1 case of intraoperative endplate injury, 1 case of nerve root cuff tear, 1 case of delayed postoperative wound infection, and 2 cases of posterior cage migration. Conclusion BE-LIF for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis complicated with osteoporosis can achieve better immediate reduction effect, good clinical outcomes and high fusion rate in short-term follow-up, but the anterior and posterior disc height, segmental lordotic angle are partially lost at the last follow-up. There are still complications, and beginners should be cautious when performing the operation. Postoperative standardized anti-osteoporosis treatment is still an important measure to ensure the curative effect of surgery.
Key words: lumbar spondylolisthesis; osteoporosis; endoscopy; spinal fusion
Honglin GU , Xiaoqing ZHENG , Changxiang LIANG , Dan XIAO , Shixing ZENG , Yunbing. CHANG . Surgical strategy and early efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2024 , 40(19) : 2696 -2702 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2024.19.006
| 1 | CHAN A K, SHARMA V, ROBINSON L C, et al. Summary of Guidelines for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis[J]. Neurosurg Clin N Am, 2019,30(3): 353-364. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2019.02.009 |
| 2 | QIN R, LIU B, ZHOU P, et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis Grades 1 and 2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. World Neurosurg, 2019,122: 180-189. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.202 |
| 3 | KANG M S, YOU K H, CHOI J Y, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique[J]. Spine J, 2021,21(12): 2066-2077. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013 |
| 4 | CAO S, FAN B, SONG X, et al. Expandable versus static cages in unilateral biportal endoscopy lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS): comparison of clinical and radiological results[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2023,18(1): 505. |
| 5 | GUO W, LI T, FENG C, et al. Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion verse 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study with 24-month follow-up[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2023,18(1): 943. doi:10.1186/s13018-023-04401-4 |
| 6 | LEE D H, LEE D G, PARK C K, et al. Saving Stabilizing Structure Treatment With Bilateral-Contralateral Decompression for Spinal Stenosis in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy[J]. Neurospine, 2023,20(3): 931-939. doi:10.14245/ns.2346504.252 |
| 7 | ZHOU L, LI C, ZHANG H. Correlation between bone mineral density of different sites and lumbar disc degeneration in postmenopausal women[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2022,101(13): e28947. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000028947 |
| 8 | 梁昌详, 郑晓青, 肖丹, 等. 双通道镜下腰椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎疾病的手术要点和早期疗效[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2020,38(6): 703-708. |
| 9 | KIM J E, YOO H S, CHOI D J, et al. Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease[J]. Clin Spine Surg, 2021,34(2): E64-E71. doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000001024 |
| 10 | 舒鹏, 王智伟, 陈刚. 单侧双通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗单节段Ⅰ、Ⅱ度腰椎滑脱症近期疗效分析[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2022,36(10): 1207-1212. |
| 11 | KHALID S I, NUNNA R S, MAASARANI S, et al. Association of osteopenia and osteoporosis with higher rates of pseudarthrosis and revision surgery in adult patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion[J]. Neurosurg Focus, 2020,49(2): E6. doi:10.3171/2020.5.focus20289 |
| 12 | AHN Y, YOUN M S, HEO D H. Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comprehensive review[J]. Expert Rev Med Devices, 2019,16(5): 373-380. doi:10.1080/17434440.2019.1610388 |
| 13 | 中国康复医学会脊柱脊髓损伤专业委员会脊柱微创学组, 中国康复医学会脊柱脊髓专业委员会腰椎研究学组. 脊柱内镜辅助下腰椎椎体间融合术应用的中国专家共识[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2023,103(5): 329-335. |
| 14 | 梁昌详, 郑晓青, 肖丹, 等. 双通道内镜辅助下腰椎融合术的围手术期并发症及应对措施分析[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2022,32(3): 251-257. |
| 15 | 张斌, 孔清泉, 戎利民. 经皮内镜辅助腰椎椎间融合术的技术利弊分析及趋势展望[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2022,36(6): 653-659. |
| 16 | PARK M K, KIM K T, BANG W S, et al. Risk factors for cage migration and cage retropulsion following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion[J]. Spine J, 2019,19(3): 437-447. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2019.05.146 |
| 17 | NAGAHAMA K, ITO M, ABE Y, et al. Early Clinical Results of Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A New Modified Technique for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis[J]. Spine Surg Relat Res, 2019,3(4): 327-334. doi:10.22603/ssrr.2018-0058 |
| 18 | COMPAGNONE D, MANDELLI F, PONZO M, et al. Complications in endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review[J]. Eur Spine J, 2024,33(2): 401-408. doi:10.1007/s00586-023-07891-2 |
| 19 | CHEN L, ZHU B, ZHONG H Z, et al. The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis[J]. Front Surg, 2022,9: 873691. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691 |
| 20 | 赵兴, 周坷, 马彦, 等. 骨密度与退行性腰椎滑脱症手术疗效的相关性分析[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2014,34(1): 33-38. |
| 21 | LAK A M, ABUNIMER A M, DEVI S, et al. Reduction versus In Situ Fusion for Adult High-Grade Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. World Neurosurg, 2020,138: 512-520. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.03.030 |
| 22 | HE R, TANG G L, CHEN K, et al. Fusion in situ versus reduction for spondylolisthesis treatment: grading the evidence through a meta-analysis[J]. Bioscience Rep, 2020,40(6): BSR20192888. doi:10.1042/bsr20192888 |
| 23 | PENG J C, GUO H Z, ZHAN C G, et al. Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine[J]. Sci Rep, 2023,13(1): 827. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-27539-x |
| 24 | 徐宝山, 马信龙, 胡永成, 等. 可动式椎间盘镜下椎体间融合术治疗腰椎滑脱症[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2017,37(4): 217-225. |
| 25 | LIU Y Y, XIAO J, YIN X, et al. Clinical efficacy of Bone Cement-injectable Cannulated Pedicle Screw Short Segment Fixation for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Osteoporosise[J]. Sci Rep, 2020,10(1): 3929. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60980-w |
| 26 | NAGAHAMA K, KANAYAMA M, TOGAWA D, et al. Does alendronate disturb the healing process of posterior lumbar interbody fusion? A prospective randomized trial[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2011,14(4): 500-507. doi:10.3171/2010.11.spine10245 |
| 27 | CHEN F, DAI Z, KANG Y, et al. Effects of zoledronic acid on bone fusion in osteoporotic patients after lumbar fusion[J]. Osteoporos Int, 2016,27(4): 1469-1476. doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3398-1 |
| 28 | FATIMA N, MASSAAD E, HADZIPASIC M, et al. Assessment of the efficacy of teriparatide treatment for osteoporosis on lumbar fusion surgery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2021,44(3): 1357-1370. doi:10.1007/s10143-020-01359-3 |
| 29 | HE X Y, CHEN H X, ZHAO Z R. Efficacy and safety of different anti-osteoporotic drugs for the spinal fusion surgery: A network meta-analysis[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2023,11(30): 7350-7362. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v11.i30.7350 |
| 30 | 王晓陆, 尹宗生, 刘艺明, 等. 多节段腰椎管狭窄症融合术后疗效与脊柱骨盆参数变化分析[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2023,39(2): 224-229. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |