How to Set Working Cannula in Endoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Morphometric Analysis Based on Computed Tomography

被引:0
|
作者
Zhou, Conghui [1 ]
Lou, Junsheng [1 ]
Fan, Yunpeng [1 ]
Guo, Ziyi [2 ]
Shen, Honghao [1 ]
Jin, Mengran [1 ]
Wu, Junsong [1 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Univ, Sch Med, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Orthoped Surg, 79 Qingchun Rd, Hangzhou 310003, Peoples R China
[2] Shenzhen Pingle Orthoped Hosp, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
关键词
Computed Tomography; Endoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Endo-TLIF); Exiting Nerve Root; Intervertebral Foramen; Three-Dimensional Reconstruction; INTERVERTEBRAL FORAMEN; CLINICAL-OUTCOMES; NERVE ROOT;
D O I
10.1111/os.14239
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
ObjectivesThere is a high risk of nerve root injury during endoscopic-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF). This study used computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess the relationship between the exiting nerve root and its surroundings, and the corresponding intervertebral disc. We also measured the approximate position and angle for the placement of the working cannula to reduce the risk of nerve root injury during Endo-TLIF procedures in the Chinese population.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted at our institution between December 2021 and December 2022. A total of 115 patients suffering from low back pain were recruited for the study. For each participant, three-dimensional (3D) vertebral models of the lumbar segments from L3 to S1 were constructed based on their CT images. The nerve root-disc distance, cannula insertion bypass distance and angle, foraminal height and width, exiting nerve root height, and nerve root-pedicle distance were measured. A paired t-test was used to compare measurements between the left and right sides, while inter- and intraobserver reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsFrom L3/4 to L5/S1 segments, the ideal cannula insertion distance range was 37.51 +/- 4.91-120.38 +/- 37.71 mm at L3/4; 42.38 +/- 5.29-116.25 +/- 27.22 mm at L4/5; and 37.78 +/- 4.86-69.26 +/- 12.64 mm at L5/S1. The appropriate cannula insertion angle range was 30.86 degrees +/- 5.05 degrees-62.59 degrees +/- 6.66 degrees at L3/4; 34.30 degrees +/- 4.73 degrees-60.88 degrees +/- 7.34 degrees at L4/5; and 35.89 degrees +/- 4.18 degrees-47.65 degrees +/- 7.38 degrees at L5/S1. The height of the intervertebral foramen (IVF) gradually decreased, and the width steadily increased. The exiting nerve root height and the nerve root-pedicle distance slightly decreased caudally.ConclusionFrom L3/4 to L5/S1, the range of working cannula insertion distance and angle gradually decreased, and the exiting nerve root height occupying the IVF gradually increased. Our measurement can reduce the risk of nerve root injury caused by inserting the working cannula during Endo-TLIF. This study introduces a novel approach for determining the approximate position and angle for placement of the working cannula. Observing a reduction in the insertion distance and angle from L3/4 to L5/S1 aims to reduce the risk of nerve root injury during Endo-TLIF procedures.image
引用
收藏
页码:3006 / 3013
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] How I do it? Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion assisted with biportal endoscopic technique
    Min-Seok Kang
    Hoon-Jae Chung
    Ho-Jung Jung
    Hyun-Jin Park
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2021, 163 : 295 - 299
  • [22] How I do it? Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion assisted with biportal endoscopic technique
    Kang, Min-Seok
    Chung, Hoon-Jae
    Jung, Ho-Jung
    Park, Hyun-Jin
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2021, 163 (01) : 295 - 299
  • [23] Ten-Step Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Under Computed Tomography-Based Intraoperative Navigation: Technical Report and Preliminary Outcomes in Mexico
    Quillo-Olvera, Javier
    Quillo-Resendiz, Javier
    Quillo-Olvera, Diego
    Barrera-Arreola, Michelle
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 19 (05) : 608 - 618
  • [24] Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis
    He, Yanxing
    Cheng, Qianyue
    She, Jiang
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [25] Lumbar 3-Lumbar 5 Robotic-Assisted Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 2-Dimensional Operative Video
    Liounakos, Jason I.
    Wang, Michael Y.
    OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 19 (01) : E73 - E74
  • [26] How Safe Is Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Octogenarians?: A Perioperative Complication Analysis
    Vasilikos, Ioannis
    Fistouris, Panagiotis
    Kruger, Marie Therese
    Scholz, Christoph
    Kogias, Evangelos
    Roelz, Roland
    Sircar, Ronen
    Beck, Jurgen
    Hubbe, Ulrich
    Klingler, Jan-Helge
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 139 : E754 - E760
  • [27] Percutaneous endoscopic versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis
    Song, Yi-Fan
    Wang, Hui
    Zhang, Jian-Wei
    Li, Yi-Ming
    Xue, You-Di
    Fu, Yu-Fei
    Li, Jie
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2022, 17 (04) : 591 - 600
  • [28] Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative
    Ma, Tao
    Tu, Xiaoshuang
    Li, Junyang
    Geng, Yongcun
    Wu, Jingwei
    Chen, Senlin
    Yan, Dengming
    Jiang, Ming
    Gao, Gongming
    Nong, Luming
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2025, 12
  • [29] Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sousa, Jose Miguel
    Ribeiro, Hugo
    Silva, Joao Luis
    Nogueira, Paulo
    Consciencia, Jose Guimaraes
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01)
  • [30] Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): systematic review and meta-analysis
    José Miguel Sousa
    Hugo Ribeiro
    João Luís Silva
    Paulo Nogueira
    José Guimarães Consciência
    Scientific Reports, 12