Blog Elements

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF between Asian and African Population- A Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients

March 28, 2022/in Vol 3 Issue 1 April-September 2022 /by backbonejournal

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | April-September 2022 | page: 14-19 | Hitesh N. Modi, Utsab Shreshtha DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i01.034 Authors: Hitesh N. Modi [1], Utsab Shreshtha [1] [1] Department of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospitals and Healthcare Research Pvt. Ltd., Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Address of Correspondence Dr. Hitesh N. Modi, Department of Spine Surgery, Zydus […]

Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions

March 28, 2022/in Vol 3 Issue 1 April-September 2022 /by backbonejournal

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | April-September 2022 | page: 07-13 | Nandan A. Marathe, Pauras P. Mhatre, Sudeep Date, Ayush Sharma DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i01.033 Authors: Nandan A. Marathe [1], Pauras P. Mhatre [1], Sudeep Date [2], Ayush Sharma [3] [1] Department of Orthopaedics, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. [2] Department […]

Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF between Asian and African Population- A Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients

March 28, 2022/in Vol 3 Issue 1 April-September 2022 /by backbonejournal

Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions

March 28, 2022/in Vol 3 Issue 1 April-September 2022 /by backbonejournal

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF between Asian and African Population- A Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients

March 28, 2022/in Vol 3 Issue 1 April-September 2022 /by backbonejournal

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | April-September 2022 | page: 14-19 | Hitesh N. Modi, Utsab Shreshtha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i01.034

Authors: Hitesh N. Modi [1], Utsab Shreshtha [1]

[1] Department of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospitals and Healthcare Research Pvt. Ltd., Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Hitesh N. Modi,
Department of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospitals and Healthcare Research Pvt. Ltd., Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
E-mail: drmodihitesh@gmail.com

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate pre-operative and post-operative sagittal parameters using pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), and segmental lordosis (SL) between Asian and African population who underwent minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open-TLIF surgeries. Study compares blood loss, operative time, and hospital stay; and evaluates disability and pain by Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score, respectively, in both groups.
Methods: This retrospective study included 104 patients with an average age of 52.1 ± 12.9 years. All were operated for open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for one- or two-level lumbar canal stenosis or spondylolisthesis. Patients were divided into two groups according to race: Asian and African. Clinical improvements were evaluated using VAS and ODI scores. Modified MacNab’s criteria were used to evaluate outcome. Estimated blood loss, hospital stay, operative time, perioperative morbidity, and complications were reviewed. On radiological parameters, patients’ LL, PI, and SL were compared between two groups.
Results: Average follow-up was 40.6 ± 13.9 months. Both groups showed significant post-operative improvement in their VAS and ODI scores in both open- and MIS-TLIF (P < 0.0001); however, comparing clinical improvement between Asian and African groups, it did not show significant difference in VAS (P = 0.103) and ODI (P = 0.077). Both groups showed significant improvement in LL and SL in both open- and MIS-TLIF (P < 0.0001); however, there was no change in PI. It did not show any significant difference in improvement in LL (P = 0.156), PI (P = 0.798), and SL (P = 0.179) between Asian and African groups. Regarding post-operative complications, there were 4 (6.9%) and 3 (6.5%) complications occurred in Asian and African population, respectively. There were no difference in complication rates in both groups (P = 0.939).
Discussion: TLIF (MIS and open) gives similar clinical outcome between Asian and African population. Sagittal parameters were higher in African population than the Asian population. Attention should be paid to predetermine the value of LL to achieve during surgery.
Keywords: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, Asian versus African, Sagittal parameters, Clinical outcome.

References

1. Liu V, Weill D, Bhattacharya J. Racial disparities in survival after lung transplantation. Arch Surg 2011;146:286-93.
2. McClelland S 3rd, Guo H, Okuyemi KS. Morbidity and mortality following acoustic neuroma excision in the United States: analysis of racial disparities during a decade in the radiosurgery era. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1252-9.
3. Drazin D, Shweikeh F, Lagman C, Ugiliweneza B, Boakye M. Racial disparities in elderly patients receiving lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. Global Spine J 2017;7:162-9.
4. Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A, Claus EB. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA 2009;302:58-66.
5. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: Dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982;120:343-7.
6. Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28 Suppl 15:S26-35.
7. Styf JR, Willén J. The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:354-8.
8. Kim CH, Lee CH, Kim KP. How high are radiation-related risks in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with traditional open surgery? A meta-analysis and dose estimates of ionizing radiation. Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:52-9.
9. Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, Singh K. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: One surgeon’s learning curve. Spine J 2014;14:1460-5.
10. Ryang YM, Villard J, Obermüller T, Friedrich B, Wolf P, Gempt J, et al. Learning curve of 3D fluoroscopy image-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J 2015;15:467-76.
11. Park Y, Lee SB, Seok SO, Jo BW, Ha JW. Perioperative surgical complications and learning curve associated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single-institute experience. Clin Orthop Surg 2015;7:91-6.
12. Ng CL, Pang BC, Medina PJ, Tan KA, Dahshaini S, Liu LZ. The learning curve of lateral access lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population: A prospective study. Eur Spine J 2015;24 Suppl 3:361-8.
13. Arima H, Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Yamato Y, Matsuyama Y, Mac-Thiong JM, et al. Differences in lumbar and pelvic parameters among African American, Caucasian and Asian populations. Eur Spine J 2018;27:2990-8.
14. Jain A, Menga E, Mesfin A. Outcomes following surgical management of Cauda Equina syndrome: Does race matter? J Racial Ethn Health Disparities 2018;5:287-92.
15. Seicean A, Seicean S, Neuhauser D, Benzel EC, Weil RJ. The influence of race on short-term outcomes after laminectomy and/or fusion spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:34-41.
16. Rantanen J, Hurme M, Falck B, Alaranta H, Nykvist F, Lehto M, et al. The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:568-74.
17. Sihvonen T, Herno A, Paljärvi L, Airaksinen O, Partanen J, Tapaninaho A. Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:575-81.
18. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:941-4.
19. Kawaguchi Y, Matsui H, Tsuji H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:2598-602.
20. Mayer TG, Vanharanta H, Gatchel RJ, Mooney V, Barnes D, Judge L, et al. Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:33-6.
21. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H. Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18:40-7.
22. Zhao J, Zhang S, Li X, He B, Ou Y, Jiang D. Comparison of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective cohort study. Med Sci Monit 2018;24:8693-8.
23. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2024-9.
24. Suk KS, Kim KT, Lee SH, Kim JM. Significance of chin-brow vertical angle in correction of kyphotic deformity of ankylosing spondylitis patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:2001-5.
25. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: A fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 1998;7:99-103.
26. Burkus M, Schlégl AT, O’Sullivan I, Márkus I, Vermes C, Tunyogi-Csapó M. Sagittal plane assessment of spino-pelvic complex in a Central European population with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A case control study. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 2018;13:10.
27. Sullivan TB, Marino N, Reighard FG, Newton PO. Relationship between lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence in the adolescent patient: Normal cohort analysis and literature comparison. Spine Deform 2018;6:529-36.
28. Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Berthonnaud E, Betz RR, Roussouly P. Sagittal spinopelvic balance in normal children and adolescents. Eur Spine J 2007;16:227-34.
29. Ould-Slimane M, Lenoir T, Dauzac C, Rillardon L, Hoffmann E, Guigui P, et al. Influence of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures on spinal and pelvic parameters of sagittal balance. Eur Spine J 2012;21:1200-6.
30. Recnik G, Košak R, Vengust R. Influencing segmental balance in isthmic spondylolisthesis using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2013;26:246-51.
31. Massie LW, Zakaria HM, Schultz LR, Basheer A, Buraimoh MA, Chang V. Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus 2018;44:E8.
32. Barbagallo GM, Piccini M, Alobaid A, Al-Mutair A, Albanese V, Certo F. Bilateral tubular minimally invasive surgery for low-dysplastic lumbosacral lytic spondylolisthesis (LDLLS): analysis of a series focusing on postoperative sagittal balance and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 2014;23 Suppl 6:705-13.
33. Rajakumar DV, Hari A, Krishna M, Sharma A, Reddy M. Complete anatomic reduction and monosegmental fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis of Grade II and higher: Use of the minimally invasive “rocking” technique. Neurosurg Focus 2017;43:E12.
34. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7:379-86.
35. Champagne PO, Walsh C, Diabira J, Plante ME, Wang Z, Boubez G, et al. Sagittal balance correction following lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of the three approaches. Asian Spine J 2019;13:450-8.
36. Marty C, Boisaubert B, Descamps H, Montigny JP, Hecquet J, Legaye J, et al. The sagittal anatomy of the sacrum among young adults, infants, and spondylolisthesis patients. Eur Spine J 2002;11:119-25.

How to Cite this Article: Modi HN, Shreshtha U | Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open- TLIF between Asian and African Population- a Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | April-September 2022; 3(1): 14-19. https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i01.034

(Abstract Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions

March 28, 2022/in Vol 3 Issue 1 April-September 2022 /by backbonejournal

Volume 3 | Issue 1 | April-September 2022 | page: 07-13 | Nandan A. Marathe, Pauras P. Mhatre, Sudeep Date, Ayush Sharma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i01.033

Authors: Nandan A. Marathe [1], Pauras P. Mhatre [1], Sudeep Date [2], Ayush Sharma [3]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
[2] Department of Orthopaedics, Cumberland Infirmary, Newtown Road, Carlisle CA2 7HY, United Kingdom.
[3] Consultant Spine Surgeon and Head of Spine unit, Railway Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Address of Correspondence
Pauras P. Mhatre,
Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India.
E-mail: paurasmhatre@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Advances in case selection, operative methods, and postsurgical care have facilitated spine surgeons to manage complex spine cases with short operative times, decreased hospital stay and improved outcomes.
Methods: This is an overview of recent updates and future directions in the field of spine surgery. All the articles were obtained through a literature review on PubMed.
Results: Minimally invasive spine procedures like Endoscopic spine surgeries, Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion, use of retractor systems, etc. are emerging in rapidly in modern world. Fusion surgeries are associated with adjacent level disease hence, motion preservation surgeries that mimic the natural biomechanics of the spine are being explored as alternatives. In view of risks to vital structures, nerve injury due to mal-positioning, etc.; robotic spine surgery has paved a way to allow surgeons real-time procedural manipulation along with instrument control, real-scale magnification. Many high-impact discoveries in cancer research, stereotactic radiotherapy, newer combinations of chemotherapy, and tumor-specific antibodies have increased our understanding of spine oncology. Past two decades have seen many advancements in treatment of spine deformities right from initial radiographic assessment, surgical planning to postoperative care.
Conclusion: All in all, all stakeholders in innovation including the industry, scientists and surgeons must work in an open and honest collaboration to benefit the future patients and continue the evolution in Spine Surgery.
Keywords: Spine surgery, Recent updates, Minimally invasive surgery, Artificial disc replacement, Artificial intelligence.

References

[1] Kazemi N, Crew LK, Tredway TL. The future of spine surgery: New horizons in the treatment of spinal disorders. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:15–21. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.109186.
[2] Fehlings MG, Ahuja CS, Mroz T, Hsu W, Harrop J. Future advances in spine surgery: The AOSpine North America perspective. Clin Neurosurg 2017;80:S1–8. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw112.
[3] Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE, Rice-Wyllie L, Wellington R, Smith MM, et al. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 2002;51:S129-36.
[4] Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG. A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:432–8. doi:10.1097/00007632-200202150-00021.
[5] O’Toole JE, Eichholz KM, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive insertion of syringosubarachnoid shunt for posttraumatic syringomyelia: Technical case report. Neurosurgery 2007;61:E331-2; discussion E332. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000303990.03235.81.
[6] Ogden AT, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive resection of intramedullary ependymoma: Case report. Neurosurgery 2009;65:E1203-4; discussion E1204. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000360153.65238.F0.
[7] Tredway TL, Musleh W, Christie SD, Khavkin Y, Fessler RG, Curry DJ. A novel minimally invasive technique for spinal cord untethering. Neurosurgery 2007;60:ONS70-4; discussion ONS74. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000249254.63546.D7.
[8] Tredway TL, Santiago P, Hrubes MR, Song JK, Christie SD, Fessler RG. Minimally invasive resection of intradural-extramedullary spinal neoplasms. Neurosurgery 2006;58:ONS52-8; discussion ONS52-8. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000192661.08192.1c.
[9] Sandhu FA, Santiago P, Fessler RG, Palmer S. Minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar synovial cysts. Neurosurgery 2004;54:107–11; discussion 111-2. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000097269.79994.2f.
[10] Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S294-301. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc.
[11] Ozgur BM, Yoo K, Rodriguez G, Taylor WR. Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Eur Spine J 2005;14:887–94. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0941-3.
[12] Kulkarni AG, Kantharajanna SB, Dhruv AN. The use of tubular retractors for translaminar discectomy for cranially and caudally extruded discs. Indian J Orthop 2018;52:328–33. doi:10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_364_16.
[13] Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2006;6:435–43. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.012.
[14] Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: Perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S322-30. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022e04.
[15] Hsieh PC, Koski TR, Sciubba DM, Moller DJ, O’Shaughnessy BA, Li KW, et al. Maximizing the potential of minimally invasive spine surgery in complex spinal disorders. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E19. doi:10.3171/FOC/2008/25/8/E19.
[16] Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28:1–7. doi:10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09263.
[17] Pimenta L, Oliveira L, Schaffa T, Coutinho E, Marchi L. Lumbar total disc replacement from an extreme lateral approach: Clinical experience with a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;14:38–45. doi:10.3171/2010.9.SPINE09865.
[18] Jin C, Jaiswal MS, Jeun SS, Ryu KS, Hur JW, Kim JS. Outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease in patients under or over 65years of age. J Orthop Surg Res 2018;13:1–10. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0740-2.
[19] Yue JJ, Long W. Full endoscopic spinal surgery techniques: Advancements, indications, and outcomes. Int J Spine Surg 2015;9. doi:10.14444/2017.
[20] Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, Hochschuler SH, Geisler FH, Holt RT, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITÉTM artificial disc versus lumbar fusion – Part I: Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1565–75. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000170587.32676.0e.
[21] Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Hochschuler SH, Blumenthal SL, Fedder IL, Ohnmeiss DD, et al. Prospective randomized study of the Charité artificial disc: Data from two investigational centers. Spine J 2004;4:S252–9. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.07.019.
[22] Geisler FH. The CHARITE Artificial Disc: design history, FDA IDE study results, and surgical technique. Clin Neurosurg 2006;53:223–8.
[23] Delamarter RB, Bae HW, Pradhan BB. Clinical results of ProDisc-II lumbar total disc replacement: Report from the United States clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:301–13. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.03.004.
[24] Sekhon LHS, Duggal N, Lynch JJ, Haid RW, Heller JG, Riew KD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan®, Prodisc-C®, Prestige LP®, and PCM® cervical arthroplasty devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:673–80. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000257547.17822.14.
[25] Oskouian RJ, Whitehill R, Samii A, Shaffrey ME, Johnson JP, Shaffrey CI. The future of spinal arthroplasty: a biomaterial perspective. Neurosurg Focus 2004;17:E2. doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.2.
[26] Robbins MM, Vaccaro AR, Madigan L. The use of bioabsorbable implants in spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2004;16:E1. doi:10.3171/foc.2004.16.3.2.
[27] Tafazal SI, Sell PJ. Incidental durotomy in lumbar spine surgery: Incidence and management. Eur Spine J 2005;14:287–90. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0821-2.
[28] D’Andrea K, Dreyer J, Fahim DK. Utility of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging coregistered with intraoperative computed tomographic scan for the resection of complex tumors of the spine. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1804–15. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.07.072.
[29] Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, Politis AN, Arnaoutoglou CM, Karageorgos AC, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: A systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand,fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J 2012;21:247–55. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2011-3.
[30] Rampersaud YR, Lee KS. Fluoroscopic computer-assisted pedicle screw placement through a mature fusion mass: An assessment of 24 consecutive cases with independent analysis of computed tomography and clinical data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:217–22. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000251751.51936.3f.
[31] Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G. Spinal robotics: Current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 2013;72:12–8. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318270d02c.
[32] Overley SC, Cho SK, Mehta AI, Arnold PM. Navigation and Robotics in Spinal Surgery: Where Are We Now? Neurosurgery 2017;80:S86–99. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw077.
[33] Lee JYK, Lega B, Bhowmick D, Newman JG, O’Malley BW, Weinstein GS, et al. Da vinci robot-assisted transoral odontoidectomy for basilar invagination. ORL 2010;72:91–5. doi:10.1159/000278256.
[34] Yang MS, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Kim H, Yang JW, Yi S, et al. Robot-assisted anterior lumbar interbody fusion in a swine model in vivo test of the da vinci surgical-assisted spinal surgery system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E139-43. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d40ba3.
[35] Kim MJ, Ha Y, Yang MS, Yoon DH, Kim KN, Kim H, et al. Robot-assisted anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using retroperitoneal approach. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:675–9. doi:10.1007/s00701-009-0568-y.
[36] Ponnusamy K, Chewning S, Mohr C. Robotic approaches to the posterior spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2104–9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b20212.
[37] Artibani W, Fracalanza S, Cavalleri S, Iafrate M, Aragona M, Novara G, et al. Learning curve and preliminary experience with da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2008;80:237–44. doi:10.1159/000127333.
[38] Holly LT, Foley KT. Intraoperative spinal navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:S54-61. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000076899.78522.D9.
[39] Ughwanogho E, Patel NM, Baldwin KD, Sampson NR, Flynn JM. Computed tomography-guided navigation of thoracic pedicle screws for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis results in more accurate placement and less screw removal. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E473-8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318238bbd9.
[40] Lee JH, Jang HL, Lee KM, Baek HR, Jin K, Hong KS, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the bioactivity of hydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone biocomposites created by cold spray technology. Acta Biomater 2013;9:6177–87. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2012.11.030.
[41] Schroeder GD, Hsu WK, Kepler CK, Kurd MF, Vaccaro AR, Patel AA, et al. Use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:445–9. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001228.
[42] Zweckberger K, Ahuja CS, Liu Y, Wang J, Fehlings MG. Self-assembling peptides optimize the post-traumatic milieu and synergistically enhance the effects of neural stem cell therapy after cervical spinal cord injury. Acta Biomater 2016;42:77–89. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.016.
[43] Leckie AE, Akens MK, Woodhouse KA, Yee AJM, Whyne CM. Evaluation of thiol-modified hyaluronan and elastin-like polypeptide composite augmentation in early-stage disc degeneration: Comparing 2 minimally invasive techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1296-303. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318266ecea.
[44] Leung VYL, Tam V, Chan D, Chan BP, Cheung KMC. Tissue Engineering for Intervertebral Disk Degeneration. Orthop Clin North Am 2011;42:575–83. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2011.07.003.
[45] He Z, Zhai Q, Hu M, Cao C, Wang J, Yang H, et al. Bone cements for percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty: Current status and future developments. J Orthop Transl 2015;3:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2014.11.002.
[46] Girolami M, Boriani S, Bandiera S, Barbanti-Bródano G, Ghermandi R, Terzi S, et al. Biomimetic 3D-printed custom-made prosthesis for anterior column reconstruction in the thoracolumbar spine: a tailored option following en bloc resection for spinal tumors: Preliminary results on a case-series of 13 patients. Eur Spine J 2018;27:3073–83. doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5708-8.
[47] Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Bess S, Shamji MF, Brodke D, Lenke LG, et al. Recent and Emerging Advances in Spinal Deformity. Neurosurgery 2017;80:S70–85. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw048.
[48] Saindane AM. Recent Advances in Brain and Spine Imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2015;53:477–96. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2014.12.004.
[49] Mahboub-Ahari A, Hajebrahimi S, Yusefi M, Velayati A. EOS imaging versus current radiography: A health technology assessment study. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016;30.

How to Cite this Article: Marathe NA, Mhatre PP, Date S, Sharma A | Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | April-September 2022; 3(1): 07-13. https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i01.033

(Abstract Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Contact

EDITOR
Dr Hitesh Modi
Zydus Hospital and Healthcare research Pvt Ltd.,
SG Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Email: editorbackbonejournal@gmail.com

Publisher
Spine Association of Gujrat (SAG)
Address: Stavya’ Spine Hospital & Research Institute
Near Nagari Eye Hospital & Hindi Rashtrabhasha College,
Mithakhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad
Pin Code– 380006.
Online publication assistance is provided by
Indian Orthopaedic Research Group,
A- 203, Manthan Apts, Shreesh CHS, Hajuri Road,
Thane- 400612, Maharashtra, India.
Tel – 022-25834545.

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF between Asian and African Population- A Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients

Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions

Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF between Asian and African Population- A Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients

Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Clinical and Radiological Outcome following MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF between Asian and African Population- A Comparative Retrospective Analysis in 104 Patients

Authors: Hitesh N. Modi [1], Utsab Shreshtha [1]

References

(Abstract Text HTML) (Download PDF)

Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review About Recent Updates and Future Directions

Authors: Nandan A. Marathe [1], Pauras P. Mhatre [1], Sudeep Date [2], Ayush Sharma [3]

References

(Abstract Text HTML) (Download PDF)

License

Important Links

Contact