Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical outcomes of short rod technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a minimum of 2-year follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We present for the first time a novel entry point of pedicle screws (Short Rod Technique, SRT), which can avoid superior facet violation and has been verified as a safe screw placement method. The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical outcomes of SRT in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of 89 patients who received SRT and 109 patients who received PLIF surgery with regular entry points of pedicle screws with a minimum of 2 years of follow-ups. Patients were divided into three groups according to the number of fusion segments, and the clinical outcomes of the three groups were compared.

Results

The length of the wound and the length of rods were significantly shorter in the each SRT group. Less intraoperative blood loss was observed in the SRT group in patients with a single segment and two segments fusions, but not in three segments fusions. Fewer degenerations of the upper adjacent segment were observed in the SRT group in patients with a single segment and three segments fusions. In addition, less postoperative wound pain related to PLIF surgery was observed in the SRT group in patients with two and three segments fusions.

Conclusion

SRT has been validated as an effective technique with good clinical outcomes, especially for reducing the occurrence of upper ASD in PLIF surgery with a single segment and three segments. The present study provides spinal surgeons with a novel method for performing PLIF surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K et al (2017) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 17(11):1712–1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fang X, Zhang M, Wang L, Hao Z (2022) comparison of PLIF and TLIF in the treatment of LDH complicated with spinal stenosis. J Healthc Eng 2022:9743283

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang T, Ding W (2020) Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion surgery in treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 15(1):582

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Okuda S, Nagamoto Y, Takenaka S et al (2021) Effect of segmental lordosis on early-onset adjacent-segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 35(4):454–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS (2012) Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:S123–S132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Virk SS, Niedermeier S, Yu E, Khan SN (2014) Adjacent segment disease. Orthopedics 37(8):547–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Saavedra-Pozo FM, Deusdara RA, Benzel EC (2014) Adjacent segment disease perspective and review of the literature. Ochsner J 14(1):78–83

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Miyagi M, Ikeda O, Ohtori S et al (2013) Additional decompression at adjacent segments leads to adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Eur Spine J 22(8):1877–1883

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Oehme D, Goldschlager T, Rosenfeld J et al (2012) Lateral surgical approach to lumbar intervertebral discs in an ovine model. Sci World J 2012:873726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yun YI, Jeon I, Kim SW, Yu D (2022) Risk factors for adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with screw fixation: focus on paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc degeneration. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 164(3):913–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang ZB, Nie MD, Zhang NZ et al (2022) Biomechanical evaluation of a short-rod technique for lumbar fixation surgery. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 10:959210

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen S, Li B, Liu S et al (2022) Sagittal imaging study of the lumbar spine with the short rod technique. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07373-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC et al (2009) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 9(5):366–373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Keorochana G, Pairuchvej S, Trathitephun W, Arirachakaran A, Predeeprompan P, Kongtharvonskul J (2017) Comparative outcomes of cortical screw trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 102:340–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McLaughlin MR, Haid RW Jr, Rodts GE Jr, Subach BR (2000) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, and results. Clin Neurosurg 47:514–527

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Okuda S, Oda T, Miyauchi A, Haku T, Yamamoto T, Iwasaki M (2006) Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(12):2714–2720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huang X, Huang Z, Xu L, Liang D, Zhang M, Zhang H (2019) Pullout strength of reinserted pedicle screws using the previous entry point and trajectory. J Orthop Surg Res 14(1):205

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsuji T, Watanabe K, Hosogane N et al (2016) Risk factors of radiological adjacent disc degeneration with lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Sci 21(2):133–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Griffith JF, Wang YX, Antonio GE et al (2007) Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(24):E708–E712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tu Z, Li L, Wang B, Li Y, Lv G, Dai Y (2018) Stand-alone anterolateral interbody fusion versus extended posterior fusion for symptomatic adjacent-segment degeneration: a retrospective study of 2 years’ follow-up. World Neurosurg 115:e748–e755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Timon SJ, Gardner MJ, Wanich T et al (2005) Not all spondylolisthesis grading instruments are reliable. Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:157–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdullah F, Bai A, Sahil F et al (2021) Lumbar disc herniation: comparing pain relief after medical and surgical intervention. Cureus 13(6):e15885

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ma Z, Huang S, Sun J, Li F, Sun J, Pi G (2019) Risk factors for upper adjacent segment degeneration after multi-level posterior lumbar spinal fusion surgery. J Orthop Surg Res 14(1):89

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lu K, Liliang PC, Wang HK et al (2015) Reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration after multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion with proximal DIAM implantation. J Neurosurg Spine 23(2):190–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Porchet F, Chollet-Bornand A, de Tribolet N (1999) Long-term follow up of patients surgically treated by the far-lateral approach for foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations. J Neurosurg 90(1 Suppl):59–66

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Payer M (2011) “Minimally invasive” lumbar spine surgery: a critical review. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153(7):1455–1459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pruttikul P, Chobchai W, Pluemvitayaporn T, Kunakornsawat S, Piyaskulkaew C, Kittithamvongs P (2022) Comparison of post-operative wound pain between interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery: which is superior? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 32(5):909–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Watanabe K, Matsumoto M, Ikegami T et al (2011) Reduced postoperative wound pain after lumbar spinous process-splitting laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis: a randomized controlled study. J Neurosurg Spine 14(1):51–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1938–1944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anandjiwala J, Seo JY, Ha KY, Oh IS, Shin DC (2011) Adjacent segment degeneration after instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion: a prospective cohort study with a minimum five-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 20(11):1951–1960

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang H, Ma L, Yang D et al (2017) Incidence and risk factors of adjacent segment disease following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(5):e6032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bagheri SR, Alimohammadi E, ZamaniFroushani A, Abdi A (2019) Adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar instrumentation surgery for degenerative disease: incidence and risk factors. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 27(2):2309499019842378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Modi HN, Suh SW, Hong JY, Yang JH (2010) Accuracy of thoracic pedicle screw using ideal pedicle entry point in severe scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(7):1830–1837

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T et al (2015) Adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: based on cases with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(14):E831–E841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoh DJ, Wang MY, Ritland SL (2010) Anatomic features of the paramedian muscle-splitting approaches to the lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 66:13–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Zhijian Wang (Shanghai Hebu Film Culture Co., Ltd) for the paintings of Fig. 1.

Funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82102525).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mingyuan Yang, Lianjie Pu, Shu Liu, and Canglong Hou have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Changhai Hospital, Navy Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Mingyuan Yang, Shu Liu, Canglong Hou, Xiaolong Li, Bo Li, Zebin Huang, Ming Li, Yushu Bai & NingFang Mao

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Kunming Dongchuan District People’s Hospital, Kunming, Yunnan Province, China

    Lianjie Pu

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, The 89th Hospital of PLA, Weifang, Shandong Province, China

    Yuanjin Song

Authors
  1. Mingyuan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lianjie Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Canglong Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaolong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bo Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zebin Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuanjin Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ming Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yushu Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. NingFang Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yushu Bai or NingFang Mao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There was no conflict of interest in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, M., Pu, L., Liu, S. et al. Clinical outcomes of short rod technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 33, 339–355 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07950-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07950-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation