Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in Zista channel assisted by navigation
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20220420-00216
- VernacularTitle:导航辅助下Zista通道内微创经椎间孔椎间融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症
- Author:
Yili LI
1
;
Jun YANG
;
Bo WANG
;
Chang JIANG
;
Yong YANG
;
Qun YANG
Author Information
1. 郑州市骨科医院微创脊柱科，郑州 450052
- Keywords:
Lumbar vertebrae;
Spinal stenosis;
Spinal fusion;
Surgical navigation systems;
Minimally invasive surgical procedures
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2022;42(15):986-997
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the Zista channel assisted by navigation for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:The medical records of 156 patients who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2017 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into minimally invasive group, navigation open group and open group according to surgical method and navigation usage. 67 cases were treated with MIS-TLIF assisted by navigation in minimally invasive group. In the navigation open group, 31 cases underwent open TLIF surgery assisted by navigation, 58 cases were treated with open TLIF. The database was compared among the three groups including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization time and complications. Evaluated the internal fixation and fusion according to CT, assessed the surgical results according to VAS, ODI and SF-36. The clinical effects were evaluated by MacNab scores at the last follow-up.Results:The amount of intraoperative blood loss in the minimally invasive group 116.39±25.88 ml was less than that in the navigation open group 293.94±61.67 ml and the open group 396.97±92.58 ml, and the difference was statistically significant ( F=296.01, P<0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in the navigation open group was less than that in the open group. The postoperative drainage in the minimally invasive group 80.55±27.29 ml, was less than that in the navigation open group 299.94±50.32 ml and the open group 304.86±84.34 ml, and the difference was statistically significant ( F=273.14, P<0.001). The postoperative hospitalization time in the minimally invasive group 3.42±1.00 d was less than that in the navigation open group 7.16±1.39 d and the open group 7.31±1.69 d, and the difference was statistically significant ( F=154.49, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the operation time ( F=0.15, P=0.859). At 2 weeks and 3 months after operation, the VAS score of low back pain in the open navigation group (3.84±0.82, 1.90±0.91) and the open group (3.67±0.92, 1.91±0.90) and ODI in the navigation open group (34.74%±11.66%, 28.68%±8.19%) and the open group (32.21%±10.66%, 27.17%±9.59%) were lower than those in the minimally invasive group (1.70±0.92, 0.96±0.73), (18.33%±7.43%, 19.15%±7.96%), and the difference were statistically significant [( F=96.63, P<0.001; F=25.12, P<0.001), ( F=45.59, P<0.001; F=18.99, P<0.001)]. The SF-36 score of the minimally invasive group 61.48±9.50 at the last follow-up was higher than that of the navigation open group 52.51±6.99 and the open group 53.48±7.66, and the difference was statistically significant ( F=18.97, P<0.001). In the same group, the VAS score, ODI score and SF-36 score at each follow-up time after surgery were statistical differences compared with those before surgery ( P<0.05). Postoperative follow-up CT showed that the fusion rate of the minimally invasive group was 94.0% (63/67), the navigation open group was 93.5% (29/31), the open group was 93.1% (54/58), and the difference between the three groups was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.05, P=0.978). The success rate and accuracy of one-time nail placement in the minimally invasive group and the navigation open group were higher than those in the open group, the difference was statistically significant (χ 2=17.17, P<0.001; χ 2=15.49, P=0.040). Dural rupture occurred in 1 patient in the minimally invasive group and 2 patients in the open group. The drainage and condition changes were closely observed after surgery. All patients were successfully extubated after surgery without complaining of other discomfort. One patient in the minimally invasive group had endplate destruction and mild intervertebral collapse during postoperative follow-up. There was 1 case of incisional fat liquefaction in each of the navigation open group and the open group. Subgroup analysis of the results of the three groups were roughly the same as the overall results. Conclusion:MIS-TLIF in the Zista channel assisted by navigation is a safe, effective, and worthy of promotion minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery with the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery in the treatment of different types of lumbar spinal stenosis.
