Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 20, 2025
Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
Three-dimensional High-definition Exoscope in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A
Ya-Wei Yao1,2, Zhi-Peng Yao3, Ming Jiang3
1Orthopaedic Department, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, Wuhan, China.
Objectives:
The operative microscope (OM) has revolutionized the field of modern spine surgery, however, it remains limited by several drawbacks. Recently, the exoscope (EX) system has been designed to assistant spine surgery. It provides a three-dimensional (3D) high-definition (HD) operative experience and becomes an alternative to the OM. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, advantages and limitations of EX-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (EMIS-TLIF) and OM-assisted MIS-TLIF (OMIS-TLIF).
Methods:
The clinical outcomes were assessed in 47 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) who underwent MIS-TLIF assisted with the OM or EX between January 2019 and September 2020. A total of 22 were treated with EMIS-TLIF, and 25 received OMIS-TLIF. Perioperative parameters (including sex, age, number of fusion levels and body mass index), perioperative parameters (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization stay, and duration of follow-up), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back pain, VAS of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores and clinical outcomes were assessed and compared. Image quality, handling of equipment, ergonomics, 3D glasses and educational usefulness were scored according to a questionnaire.
Results:
Operation time in the OMIS-TLIF group (121.92 ± 16.92 min) was significantly increased compared with that in the EMIS-TLIF group (111.00 ± 19.87 min) (P < 0.05). The VAS of the back pain and ODI scores in the EMIS-TLIF group were significantly lower compared with the OMIS-TLIF group at 1 week postoperatively (P < 0.05). The good-excellent outcomes rate was 90.91% in the EMIS-TLIF group and 88.00% in the OMIS-TLIF group, and there was no significant difference. A total of 44 visits completed the questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire showed that the EX has exhibited advantages regarding handing of equipment, ergonomics and educational usefulness, and comparable image quality as compared with the OM, however, operating surgeons complained uncomfortable sensation when wearing 3D glasses.
Conclusions:
The EMIS-TLIF was a safe and effective procedure in the management of LDD as compared with the OMIS-LIF. Meanwhile, EMIS-TLIF might resulted in a short operation time.
