Irradiation safety, anesthesia time, surgical complications, and patient-reported outcomes in the robotic Mazor X versus fluoroscopy guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a comparative cohort study.

Griepp DW ，Caskey J ，Bunjaj A ，Turnbull J ，Alsalahi A ，Alexander H ，Dragonette J ，Sarcar B ，Desai S ，Tong D ，Soo TM ，Bono P ，Kelkar P ，Houseman C ，Claus CF ，Richards BF ，Carr DA ... -  《Neurosurgical Focus》

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spinal Pathology: Clinical Outcome Comparison in Patients With Predominant Back Pain.

Retrospective review. To compare perioperative and postoperative clinical outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in patients presenting with predominant back pain. Two popular techniques utilized for lumbar arthrodesis are MIS-TLIF and LLIF. Both techniques have reported high fusion rates and suitable postoperative clinical outcomes. Scarce literature exists, however, comparing these 2 common fusion techniques in a subset population of patients presenting with predominant back pain preoperatively. A retrospective review of lumbar procedures performed between November 2005 and December 2021 was conducted using a prospectively maintained single-surgeon database. Inclusion criteria were set as primary, elective, single, or multilevel MIS-TLIF or LLIF procedures for degenerative spinal pathology in patients with predominant preoperative back pain [visual analog scale (VAS) back pain preoperative score > VAS leg preoperative score]. Patients undergoing a revision procedure, single-level procedure at L5-S1, or surgery indicated for infectious, malignant, or traumatic etiologies were excluded. In addition, patients with VAS leg preoperative scores ≥ to VAS back preoperative scores were excluded. Patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected. PROMs included VAS for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-12 (SF-12) Item Survey Mental (MCS) and Physical (PCS) Composite Scores with all values collected at the preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up time point. Patients were grouped into 2 cohorts, depending on whether a patient underwent a MIS-TLIF or LLIF. Demographic and perioperative characteristics were compared between groups using χ 2 and Student t test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Mean PROM scores were compared between cohorts at each time point utilizing an unpaired Student t test. Postoperative improvement from preoperative baseline within each cohort was assessed with paired samples t test. Achievement of minimum clinical important difference (MCID) was determined by comparing ΔPROM scores to previously established threshold values. MCID achievement rates were compared between groups with χ 2 analysis. Statistical significance was noted as a P value <0.05. Eligible study cohort included 153 patients, split into 106 patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort and 47 patients in the LLIF cohort. The mean age was 55.9 years, the majority (57.5%) of patients were males, the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m 2 , and the majority of the included cohort were nondiabetic and nonhypertensive. No significant demographic differences were noted between cohorts. The MIS-TLIF cohort had a significantly greater proportion of patients with preoperative spinal pathology of recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus, whereas a significantly greater proportion of patients in the LLIF cohort demonstrated isthmic spondylolisthesis ( P < 0.046, all). No significant differences were noted between cohorts for operative duration, estimated blood loss, 1-year rate of arthrodesis, postoperative length of stay, postoperative VAS pain scores on postoperative day 0 or 1, and postoperative narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0 or 1. Patients in the LLIF cohort showed greater rates of postoperative ileus (4.3% vs 0.0%). No other significant differences were noted between cohorts for postoperative complications. Between cohorts, preoperative PROM scores did not significantly differ. The following significant postoperative mean PROM scores were demonstrated: VAS back at 12 weeks and ODI at 12 weeks with both mean scores favoring the LLIF cohort. The MIS-TLIF cohort reported significant improvement from preoperative baseline to the 2-year time point for all PROMs collected at all individual postoperative time points except SF-12 MCS at 6 weeks ( P < 0.0, all). LLIF cohort reported significant improvement from preoperative baseline to the 1-year time point for all PROMs collected at all individual postoperative time points except for ODI at 6 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years, SF-12 MCS at 6 weeks and 2 years, and SF-12 PCS at 2 years( P < 0.042, all). The majority of patients in both cohorts achieved overall MCID for VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the LLIF cohort achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS at 12 weeks (94.4% vs 61.1%; P < 0.008). Patients with predominant back pain undergoing MIS-TLIF or LLIF for degenerative spinal pathology demonstrated similar 2-year mean clinical outcomes for physical function, disability, leg pain, and back pain. At the 12-week time point, mean outcome scores for back pain and disability favored the lateral approach with concurrent higher rates of MCID achievement for physical function at that time point.

Jacob KC ，Patel MR ，Hartman TJ ，Nie JW ，Parsons AW ，Ribot MA ，Prabhu M ，Pawlowski H ，Vanjani N ，Singh K ... -  《-》

Comparison between robot-assisted and navigation-guided minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study.

Heath DC ，Chang HK ，Chang CC ，Yang HC ，Tu TH ，Hsu BH ，Lin MC ，Wu JC ，Lin CM ，Huang WC ，Liu HW ... -  《Neurosurgical Focus》

Surgical Innovation: Comparative Efficacy of Navigation-Assisted Modified Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) and Traditional MIS-TLIF in Treating Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in the Elderly.

To compare the efficacy of navigation-assisted modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in the elderly. We retrospectively included elderly patients with low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital from January 2019 to January 2022. Based on the surgical method chosen according to the patient's personal preference, the patients were divided into the modified MIS-TLIF group and the MIS-TLIF group. The modified MIS-TLIF group underwent navigation-assisted MIS-TLIF, while the MIS-TLIF group underwent conventional MIS-TLIF. A total of 54 patients (34 males and 20 females) were included in this study, with 26 cases in the modified MIS-TLIF group and 28 cases in the MIS-TLIF group. Relevant data for this study were collected by an independent observer. The demographic characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical level, Meyerding grade, and duration of symptoms before admission, were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. Perioperative parameters, such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, and hospital stay, were also recorded and compared. The lumbar pain visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and lumbar Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively to evaluate functional recovery in both groups. At 12 months postoperatively, patient satisfaction was assessed using the Macnab criteria (with satisfaction defined as the number of excellent and good outcomes divided by the total number in the group × 100%). The rate of vertebral slippage was recorded preoperatively, 1 week postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively. The accuracy of screw placement was evaluated by CT scan at 1 week postoperatively, and interbody fusion was assessed by CT scan at 12 months postoperatively. Surgical complications were recorded, and their incidence was calculated. The intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, and hospital stay in the modified MIS-TLIF group were less than those in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The back pain visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association modified MIS-TLIF groups improved significantly compared with the MIS-TLIF group at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery, and the differences between groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate of modified MIS-TLIF group was higher than that of MIS-TLIF group, and the difference had statistical significance (P < 0.05). The accuracy of screw placement in the modified MIS-TLIF group was higher than that in the MIS-TLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The fusion rate in the modified MIS-TLIF group was higher than that in the MIS-TLIF group at 12 months after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the incidence rate of complications between the 2 groups. Compared with MIS-TLIF, navigation-assisted modified MIS-TLIF has the advantages of less trauma, rapid recovery, accurate screw placement, high fusion rate, high surgical satisfaction, and good safety.

Liu C ，Xu C ，Liang J ，Xie B ... -  《-》

Robotic-Assisted Decompression, Decortication, and Instrumentation for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Robotic-assisted spine surgery has been reported to improve the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement and to reduce blood loss, hospital length of stay, and early postoperative pain1. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is a procedure that is well suited to be improved by recent innovations in robotic-assisted spine surgery. Heretofore, the capability of robotic navigation and software in spine surgery has been limited to assistance with pedicle screw insertion. Surgical decompression and decortication of osseous anatomy in preparation for biological fusion had historically been outside the scope of robotic-assisted spine surgery. In 2009, early attempts to perform surgical decompressions in a porcine model utilizing the da Vinci Surgical Robot for laminotomy and laminectomy were limited by the available technology2. Recent advances in software and instrumentation allow registration, surgical planning, and robotic-assisted surgery on the posterior elements of the spine. A human cadaveric study assessed the accuracy of robotic-assisted bone laminectomy, revealing precision in the cutting plane3. Robotic-assisted facet decortication, decompression, interbody cage implantation, and pedicle screw fixation add automation and accuracy to MI-TLIF. A surgical robotic system comprises an operating room table-mounted surgical arm with 6 degrees of freedom that is physically connected to the patient's osseous anatomy with either a percutaneous Steinmann pin to the pelvis or a spinous process clamp. The Mazor X Stealth Edition Spine Robotic System (Version 5.1; Medtronic) is utilized, and a preoperative plan is created with use of software for screw placement, facet decortication, and decompression. The workstation is equipped with interface software designed to streamline the surgical process according to preoperative planning, intraoperative image acquisition, registration, and real-time control over robotic motion. The combination of these parameters enables the precise execution of preplanned facet joint decortication, osseous decompression, and screw trajectories. Consequently, this technique grants the surgeon guidance for the drilling and insertion of screws, as well as guidance for robotic resection of bone with a bone-removal drill. The exploration of robotically guided facet joint decortication and decompression in MI-TLIF presents an innovative alternative to the existing surgical approaches, which involve manual bone removal and can be less precise. Other robotic systems commonly utilized in spine surgery include the ROSA (Zimmer Biomet), the ExcelsiusGPS (Globus Medical), and the Cirq (Brainlab)4. The present video article provides a comprehensive guide for executing robotic-assisted MI-TLIF, including robotic facet decortication and osseous decompression. The introduction of advanced robotic technology capable of both decompressing bone and providing implant guidance represents a considerable advancement in robotic-assisted spine surgery. Software planning for robotic-assisted decortication of fused surfaces, surgical decompression, interbody cage placement, and pedicle screw placement allows for a less invasive and more precise MI-TLIF. Anticipated outcomes include reduction in low back and leg pain, improved functional status, and successful spinal fusion. Radiographic outcomes are expected to show restored foraminal height and solid bony fusion. Further, enhanced surgical precision, reduced approach-related morbidity by expanded robotic capabilities in spinal fusion surgery, and a shift from manual bone removal to precise mechanized techniques can be expected. The introduction of robotic-assisted facet joint decortication and decompression represents a notable milestone in spine surgery, enhancing patient care and technological advancement. Although robotic systems were initially predominantly employed for thoracic or lumbar pedicle screw insertion, recent advancements in robotic technology and software have allowed registration of the posterior elements. This advancement has expanded the utility of robotic systems to the initiation of spinal decompression and the decortication of facet joint surfaces, enhancing fusion procedures.Maintaining anatomical precision and preventing the need for re-registration are critical considerations in this surgical procedure. It is recommended to follow a consistent surgical workflow: facet decortication, decompression, modular screw placement, discectomy, insertion of an interbody cage, placement of reduction tabs, rod insertion, and set screw locking.The incorporation of robotic assistance in MI-TLIF is not exempt from a set of challenges. These encompass issues that pertain to dependability of the setup process, occurrences of registration failures, logistical complexities, time constraints, and the unique learning curve associated with the novel capability of robotic decompression of bone and facet joints. MI-TLIF= minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionOR = operating roomPSIS= posterior superior iliac spineCT = computed tomographyAP = anteroposterior.

Altorfer FCS ，Avrumova F ，Lebl DR 《-》