Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disorders in order to assess its safety and effectiveness. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2021, 74 patients who received single-segment M-TLIF were examined. A total of 74 patients having single-segment PLIF during the same time period were included in a retrospective controlled study using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The two groups were compared in terms of the fusion rate, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS), the perioperative condition, the postoperative complications, and the postoperative neighbouring segment degeneration. RESULTS: All patients had surgery satisfactorily and were monitored for at least a year afterwards. The baseline values for the two groups did not significantly differ. The interbody fusion rate between PLIF (98.65%) and M-TLIF (97.30%) was not significantly different. In the follow-up, the M-TLIF group's VAS score for low back and leg pain was lower than that of the PLIF group. The ODI score of the M-TLIF group was lower than that of the PLIF group at 7 days and 3 months following surgery. Both groups' post-op VAS and ODI scores for low back and leg pain were much lower than those from before the procedure. In M-TLIF group, the operation time, drainage tube extraction time, postoperative bed rest time and hospital stay time were shorter, and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less. Compared with those before operation, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were significantly increased in both groups during postoperative follow-up (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications and adjacent segment degeneration of M-TLIF were significantly lower than those of PLIF. CONCLUSIONS: M-TLIF is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar degenerative disorders, with a high fusion rate and no significant difference between M-TLIF and PLIF. M-TLIF's efficacy and safety are comparable to that of PLIF, particularly in terms of early relief of low back pain and improvement in quality of life following surgery. Therefore, M-TLIF technology can be popularized and applied in clinic.

Investigating the mechanical effect of the sagittal angle of the cervical facet joint on the cervical intervertebral disc.

Background: Facet tropism is defined as the asymmetry between the left and right facet joints relative to the sagittal plane. Published clinical studies have found that facet tropism is associated with cervical disc herniation. However, the relationship between the facet orientation and the side of cervical disc herniation remains controversial. Therefore, this study used the finite-element technique to investigate the biomechanical effects of the sagittal angle of the cervical facet joints on the cervical intervertebral disc. Objective: The biomechanical effects of the sagittal angle of the cervical facet joint on the cervical disc and facet joint were investigated using the finite-element technique. Methods: The finite-element model was constructed using computed tomography scans of a 26-year-old female volunteer. First, a cervical model was constructed from C3 to C7. The model was verified using data from previously published studies. Second, the facet orientation at the C5-C6 level was altered to simulate different sagittal angles of cervical facet joints. Five models, F70, F80, F90, F100, and F110, were simulated with different facet joint orientations (70°, 80°, 90°, 100°, and 110° facet joint angles at the left side, respectively, and 90° facet joint angles at the right side) at the C5-C6 facet joints. In each model, annular fibres stress and facet cartilage pressure were studied under six pure moments and two combined moments. Results: Comparing the stress of the annulus fibres in flexion combined with right axial rotation and in flexion combined with left axial rotation in the same model, no difference in the maximum stress of the annulus fibres was noted between these two different moments in the F90 model, whereas differences of 12.80%, 8.84%, 14.95% and 33.32% were noted in the F70, F80, F100 and F110 models, respectively. The same trend was observed when comparing the maximum stress of the annulus fibres in each model during left and right axial rotation. No differences in annular fibres stress and facet cartilage pressure were noted among the five models in flexion, extension, lateral bending, left axial rotation, and flexion combined with left axial rotation in this study. However, compared with the F70 model in flexion combined with right axial rotation, the annulus fibres stress of the F80, F90, F100, and F110 models increased by 5.53%, 13.03%, 35.04%, and 72.94%, respectively, and the pressure of the left facet joint of these models decreased by 5.65%, 12.10%, 18.41%, and 25.74%, respectively. The same trend was observed in the right axial moment. Conclusion: Facet tropism leads to unbalanced stress distribution on the annulus fibres at the cervical intervertebral disc. The greater the sagittal angle of the facet joint, the greater the annular fibres stress on this side. We hypothesised that the side with the larger sagittal angle of the facet joint exhibits a greater risk of disc herniation.

Lumbar posterior group muscle degeneration: Influencing factors of adjacent vertebral body re-fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty.

Objective: The purpose of the study was to explore the influencing factors of adjacent vertebral re-fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for osteoporosis vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 55 patients with adjacent vertebral re-fracture after PVP operation for OVCFs in our hospital from January 2016 to June 2019, they were followed up for 1 year and included in the fracture group. According to the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, we collected the clinical data of 55 patients with OVCFs without adjacent vertebral re-fracture after PVP in the same period and included them in the non-fracture group. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis on the influencing factors of adjacent vertebral re-fracture in patients with OVCFs after PVP. Results: There were significant differences in body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD) T-value, amount of bone cement injected, bone cement leakage, history of glucocorticoid use, cross-sectional area (CSA), cross-sectional area asymmetry (CSAA), fat infiltration rate (FIR), and fat infiltration rate asymmetry (FIRA) of lumbar posterior group muscles [multifidus (MF) and erector spinae (ES)] between the two groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in sex, age, or time from the first fracture to operation, the CAS, CSAA, FIR, and FIRA of psoas major (PS) between the two groups (p > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression showed that a higher dose of bone cement, greater CSAA and FIR of multifidus, and higher CSAA of erector spinae were independent risk factors for recurrent fractures of adjacent vertebrae after PVP. Conclusion: There are many risk factors for recurrent vertebral fracture after PVP in patients with OVCFs, and degeneration of paraspinal muscles (especially posterior lumbar muscles) may be one of the risks.