Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have suggested that navigation can improve the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, few studies have compared navigation-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and navigation-assisted minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF). The entry point of pedicle screw insertion in navigation-assisted MIS-TLIF (NM-TLIF) may deviate from the planned entry point due to an uneven bone surface, which may result in misplacement. The purpose of this study was to explore the pedicle screw accuracy and clinical consequences of MIS-TLIF and TLIF, both under O-arm navigation, to determine which surgical method is better. METHODS: A retrospective study of 54 patients who underwent single-segment NM-TLIF or navigation-assisted TLIF (N-TLIF) was conducted. In addition to the patients' demographic characteristics, intraoperative indicators and complications, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score were recorded and analyzed preoperatively and at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month and final postoperative follow-ups. The clinical qualitative accuracy and absolute quantitative accuracy of pedicle screw placement were assessed by postoperative CT. Multifidus muscle injury was evaluated by T2-weighted MRI. RESULTS: Compared with N-TLIF, NM-TLIF was more advantageous in terms of the incision length, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and analgesia rate (P < 0.05). The ODI and VAS scores for low back pain were better than those of N-TLIF at 1 month and 6 months post-surgery (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the clinical qualitative screw placement accuracy (97.3% vs. 96.2%, P > 0.05). The absolute quantitative accuracy results showed that the axial translational error, sagittal translational error, and sagittal angle error in the NM-TLIF group were significantly greater than those in the N-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The mean T2-weighted signal intensity of the multifidus muscle in the NM-TLIF group was significantly lower than that in the N-TLIF group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with N-TLIF, NM-TLIF has the advantages of being less invasive, yielding similar or better screw placement accuracy and achieving better symptom relief in the midterm postoperative recovery period. However, more attention should be given to real-time adjustment for pedicle insertion in NM-TLIF rather than just following the entry point and trajectory of the intraoperative plan.