暂无摘要。

Herein, we describe a novel posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) technique with annulus fibrosus (AF) release and the use of expandable cages (called \"anterior-release PLIF\" [ARPLIF]). In this technique, posterior column osteotomy (PCO) and AF release provide excellent intervertebral mobility. AF release involves circumferentially peeling off the AF above or below the endplate between the fixed vertebrae under radiographic guidance without cutting the AF and anterior longitudinal ligament. Subsequently, high-angle variable-angle expandable cages are used to simultaneously expand both sides before inserting the percutaneous pedicle screws and correcting to achieve good local lumbar lordosis. PCO and AF release achieve excellent intervertebral mobility. Intervertebral mobility and simultaneous expansion of both cages disperse the force on the endplates, reducing cage subsidence, and the high-angle cages facilitate high intervertebral angle creation. The novel ARPLIF intervertebral manipulation technique can promote good local lumbar lordosis formation.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and/or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), referred to as \"PLIF/TLIF,\" is a commonly performed operation for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Its long-term cost-effectiveness has not been well described. The aim of this study was to determine the 5-year cost-effectiveness of PLIF/TLIF for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis using prospective data collected from the multicenter Quality Outcomes Database (QOD).
METHODS: Patients enrolled in the prospective, multicenter QOD grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis module were included if they underwent single-stage PLIF/TLIF. EQ-5D scores at baseline, 3 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 60 months were used to calculate gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with surgery relative to preoperative baseline. Healthcare-related costs associated with the index surgery and related reoperations were calculated using Medicare reimbursement-based cost estimates and validated using price transparency diagnosis-related group (DRG) charges and Medicare charge-to-cost ratios (CCRs). Cost per QALY gained over 60 months postoperatively was assessed.
RESULTS: Across 12 surgical centers, 385 patients were identified. The mean patient age was 60.2 (95% CI 59.1-61.3) years, and 38% of patients were male. The reoperation rate was 5.7%. DRG 460 cost estimates were stable between our Medicare reimbursement-based models and the CCR-based model, validating the focus on Medicare reimbursement. Across the entire cohort, the mean QALY gain at 60 months postoperatively was 1.07 (95% CI 0.97-1.18), and the mean cost of PLIF/TLIF was $31,634. PLIF/TLIF was associated with a mean 60-month cost per QALY gained of $29,511. Among patients who did not undergo reoperation (n = 363), the mean 60-month QALY gain was 1.10 (95% CI 0.99-1.20), and cost per QALY gained was $27,591. Among those who underwent reoperation (n = 22), the mean 60-month QALY gain was 0.68 (95% CI 0.21-1.15), and the cost per QALY gained was $80,580.
CONCLUSIONS: PLIF/TLIF for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis was associated with a mean 60-month cost per QALY gained of $29,511 with Medicare fees. This is far below the well-established societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, suggesting long-term cost-effectiveness. PLIF/TLIF remains cost-effective for patients who undergo reoperation.

OBJECTIVE: When using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique, two technical countermeasures are recommended to promote bone fusion: taking a long CBT screw path directed more anteriorly and improving the stability of the spinal construct by facet joint preservation, cross-link augmentation, and rigid anterior interbody reconstruction. However, there has been no report on how these surgical procedures, which are heavily dependent on the surgeon\'s preference, contribute to successful bone fusion. The aim of the present study was to investigate the progression of lumbar spinal fusion using the long CBT technique and identify factors contributing to the time taken to achieve bone fusion, with a particular focus on the involvement of surgical procedures.
METHODS: A total of 167 consecutive patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 using the long CBT technique were included (mean follow-up 42.8 months). Bone fusion was assessed to identify factors contributing to the time to achieve bone fusion. Investigated factors were 1) age, 2) sex, 3) BMI, 4) bone mineral density, 5) intervertebral mobility, 6) screw depth in the vertebra, 7) extent of facetectomy, 8) cross-link augmentation, 9) cage material, 10) cage design, 11) number of cages, and 12) contact area of cages with the vertebral endplate.
RESULTS: The bone fusion rate was 89.2% at 2 years postoperatively and 95.8% at the last follow-up, with a mean period to bone fusion of 16.6 ± 9.6 months. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that age (standardized regression coefficient [β] = 0.25, p = 0.002), female sex (β = -0.22, p = 0.004), and BMI (β = 0.15, p = 0.045) were significant independent factors affecting the time to achieve bone fusion. There was no significant effect of surgical procedures (p ≥ 0.364).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate the progression of lumbar spinal fusion using the long CBT technique and identify factors contributing to the time taken to achieve bone fusion. Patient factors such as age, sex, and BMI affected the progression of bone fusion, and surgical factors had only weak effects.

UNASSIGNED: The effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with single-level spondylolisthesis has not been substantiated. To address the evidence gap, a well-powered randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of TLIF with PLIF, entitled the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT), was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: In a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial among five Dutch hospitals, 161 patients were randomly allocated to either TLIF or PLIF (1:1), stratified according to study site. Patients and statisticians were blinded for group assignment. All patients were over 18 years old with symptomatic single-level degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and eligible for lumbar interbody fusion surgery through a posterior approach. The primary outcome was change in disability measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from preoperative to one year postoperative. The non-inferiority limit was set to 7.0 points based on the MCID of ODI. Secondary outcomes were change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) assessed with EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), as well as back and leg pain (Numerical rating scale, NRS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016), Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT): A randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.
UNASSIGNED: Patients were included between August 2017 and November 2020. The total study population was 161 patients. Total loss-to-follow-up after one year was 16 patients. Per-protocol analysis included 66 patients in each group. In the TLIF group (mean age 61.6, 36 females), ODI improved from 46.7 to 20.7, whereas in the PLIF group (mean age 61.9, 41 females), it improved from 46.0 to 24.9. This difference (-4.9, 90% CI -12.2 to +2.4) did not reach the non-inferiority limit of 7.0 points in ODI. A significant difference in the secondary outcome measurement, QALY (SF-36), was observed in favor of TLIF (P < 0.05). However, this was not clinically relevant. No difference was found for all other secondary outcome measurements; PROMs (EQ-5D, NRS leg/back, HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative and postoperative complications.
UNASSIGNED: For patients with single-level spondylolisthesis, TLIF is non-inferior to PLIF in terms of clinical effectiveness. Disability (measured with ODI) did not differ over time between groups.
UNASSIGNED: No funding was received for this trial.

Remarkable innovations in spinal endoscopic surgery have broadened its applications over the past 20 years. Full-endoscopic fusions have been widely reported, and several full-endoscopic approaches for interbody fusion have been published. In general, full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is called Endo-LIF, and facet-preserving Endo-LIF through the transforaminal route is called trans-Kambin\'s triangle LIF, which has a relatively longer history than facet-sacrificing Endo-LIF via the posterolateral route. Both approaches can reduce intraoperative and postoperative bleeding. However, there is a higher risk of subsidence and exit nerve root injury. There is no direct decompression in either of the interbody fusions, and additional decompression is required if there is severe lumbar bony canal stenosis. However, the posterior interlaminar approach, which is a well-known standard in full-endoscopic spine surgery, has rarely been applied in the field of endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery. Full-endoscopic posterior LIF (FE-PLIF) via an interlaminar approach can accomplish direct decompression of bony canal stenosis and safe interbody fusion. FE-PLIF via an interlaminar approach demonstrated a longer operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospitalization duration than minimally invasive transforaminal LIF. FE-PLIF, which can accomplish direct decompression for bony spinal canal stenosis, is superior to other Endo-LIFs. However, FE-PLIF requires technical dexterity to improve efficiency and reduce technical complexity.

The vertebral cage has been widely used in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The risk of cage dislodgment is high for patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to use a lumbar fusion model to investigate the effects of cage dislodgment on different cage arrangements after PLIF. Finite element analysis was used to compare three PEEK cage placements, together with the fibula-type cage, with respect to the four kinds of lumbar movements. The results revealed that a horizontal cage arrangement could provide a better ability to resist cage dislodgment. Overall lumbar flexion movements were confirmed to produce a greater amount of cage slip than the other three lumbar movements. The lower part of the lumbar fusion segment could create a greater amount of cage dislodgment for all of the lumbar movements. Using an autograft with a fibula as a vertebral cage cannot effectively reduce cage dislodgment. Considering the maximum movement type in lumbar flexion, we suggest that a horizontal arrangement of the PEEK cage might be considered when a single PEEK cage is placed in the fusion segment, as doing so can effectively reduce the extent of cage dislodgment.

OBJECTIVE: Frailty is an independent risk factor for adverse postoperative outcomes following spine surgery. The ability of the Risk Analysis Index (RAI) to predict adverse outcomes following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has not been studied extensively and may improve preoperative risk stratification.
METHODS: Patients undergoing PLIF were queried from Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) (2019-2020). The relationship between RAI-measured preoperative frailty and primary outcomes (mortality, non-home discharge (NHD)) and secondary outcomes (extended length of stay (eLOS), complication rates) was assessed via multivariate analyses. The discriminatory accuracy of the RAI for primary outcomes was measured in area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 429,380 PLIF patients (mean age = 61y) were identified, with frailty cohorts stratified by standard RAI convention: 0-20 \"robust\" (R)(38.3%), 21-30 \"normal\" (N)(54.3%), 31-40 \"frail\" (F)(6.1%) and 41+ \"very frail\" (VF)(1.3%). The incidence of primary and secondary outcomes increased as frailty thresholds increased: mortality (R 0.1%, N 0.1%, F 0.4%, VF 1.3%; p < 0.001), NHD (R 6.5%, N 18.1%, F 36.9%, VF 42.0%; p < 0.001), eLOS (R 18.0%, N 21.9%, F 31.6%, VF 43.8%; p < 0.001) and complication rates (R 6.6%, N 8.8%, F 11.1%, VF 12.2%; p < 0.001). The RAI demonstrated acceptable discrimination for NHD (C-statistic: 0.706) and mortality (C-statistic: 0.676) in AUROC curve analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing RAI-measured frailty is significantly associated with increased NHD, eLOS, complication rates, and mortality following PLIF. The RAI demonstrates acceptable discrimination for predicting NHD and mortality, and may be used to improve frailty-based risk assessment for spine surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an FDA-approved antifibrinolytic that is seeing increased popularity in spine surgery owing to its ability to reduce intraoperative blood loss (IOBL) and allogeneic transfusion requirements. The present study aimed to summarize the current literature on these formulations in the context of short-segment instrumented lumbar fusion including ≥ 1-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for all full-text English studies evaluating the use of topical TXA (tTXA), systemic TXA (sTXA), or combined tTXA+sTXA in patients undergoing PLIF. The primary endpoints of interest were operative time, IOBL, and total blood loss (TBL); secondary endpoints included venous thromboembolic complication occurrence, and allogeneic and autologous transfusion requirements. Outcomes were compared using random effects. Comparisons were made between the following treatment groups: sTXA, tTXA, and sTXA+tTXA. Given that sTXA is arguably the standard of care in the literature (i.e., the most common route of administration that to this point has been studied the most), the authors compared sTXA versus tTXA and sTXA versus sTXA+tTXA. Study heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test, and grouped analysis using the Hedge\'s g test was performed for measurement of effect size.
RESULTS: Forty-five articles were identified, of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion with an aggregate of 1008 patients. TXA regimens included sTXA only, tTXA only, and various combinations of sTXA and tTXA. There were no significant differences in operative time, TBL, or postoperative drainage between the sTXA and tTXA groups or between the sTXA and sTXA+tTXA groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested clinical equipoise between isolated sTXA, isolated tTXA, and combinatorial tTXA+sTXA formulations as hemostatic adjuvants/neoadjuvants in short-segment fusion including ≥ 1-level PLIF. Given the theoretically lower venous thromboembolism risk associated with tTXA, additional investigations using large cohorts comparing these two formulations within the posterior fusion population are merited. Although TXA has been shown to be effective, there are insufficient data to support topical or systemic administration as superior within the open PLIF population.

METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: Imaging changes in the vertebral body after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are determined to be trabecular bone remodeling (TBR). This study aimed to investigate the influence of cage materials on TBR and segment stabilization in PLIF by studying image changes.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study reviewing 101 cases who underwent one-level PLIF with three-dimensional porous titanium (3DTi) cages (53 patients) or polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cages (48 patients). Computed tomography images obtained 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively were examined for TBR, vertebral endplate cyst formation as an instability sign, cage subsidence, and clear zone around pedicle screw (CZPS).
RESULTS: No significant differences in the TBR-positivity rates were observed between the two cages at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. However, all 3DTi cage segments that were TBR-positive at 3 months postoperatively showed no CZPS and fewer final instability segments than the TBR-negative segments (0% vs 9%). In contrast, although the PEEK cage segments that were TBR-positive at 3 months postoperatively were not associated with future segmental stabilization, those that were TBR-positive at 1 year postoperatively had fewer final instability segments than the TBR-negative segments (0% vs 33%).
CONCLUSIONS: The 3DTi cage segments with TBR 3 months postoperatively showed significant final segmental stabilization, whereas TBR at 1 year rather than 3 months postoperatively was useful in determining final segmental stabilization for the PEEK cage segments. The timing of TBR, a new osseointegration assessment, were associated with the cage material.