Early Experience With Uniplanar Versus Biplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

被引:2
|
作者
Ledesma, Jonathan A. [1 ,2 ]
Ottaway, Jesse C. [1 ]
Lambrechts, Mark J. [1 ]
Dees, Azra [1 ]
Thomas, Terence L. [1 ]
Kurd, Mark F. [1 ]
Radcliff, Kris E. [1 ]
Anderson, David G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Rothman Orthopaed Inst, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Spine Div, Rothman Orthopaed Inst, 925 Chestnut St 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
Spinal fusion; Lumbar vertebra; Patient-reported outcomes; Minimally invasive surgery; Spine; SUBSIDENCE; OUTCOMES; CAGE;
D O I
10.14245/ns.2244870.435
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To compare the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable unipla-nar versus biplanar interbody cages used for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).Methods: A retrospective review of 1-level MIS-TLIFs performed with uniplanar and bipla-nar polyetheretherketone cages was performed. Radiographic measurements were performed on radiographs taken preoperatively, at 6-week follow-up, and 1-year follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg at 3-month and 1-year follow-up.Results: A total of 93 patients (41 uniplanar, 52 biplanar) were included. Both cage types provided significant postoperative improvements in anterior disc height, posterior disc hei-ght, and segmental lordosis at 1 year. No significant differences in cage subsidence rates were found between uniplanar (21. 9%) and biplanar devices (32. 7%) at 6 weeks (odds ra-tio, 2.015; 95% confidence interval, 0.651-6.235 ; p = 0.249) with no additional instances of subsidence at 1 year. No significant differences in the magnitude of improvements based on ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 3-month or 1-year follow-up between groups and the proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 1 year were not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05). Finally, there were no significant differences in complication rates (p = 0.283), 90-day readmission rates (p =1.00), revision surgical procedures (p = 0.423), or fusion rates at 1 year (p = 0.457) between groups.Conclusion: Biplanar and uniplanar expandable cages offer a safe and effective means of improving anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis, and patient -re-ported outcome measures at 1 year postoperatively. No significant differences in radiograph-ic outcomes, subsidence rates, mean subsidence distance, 1-year patient-reported outcomes, and postoperative complications were noted between groups.
引用
收藏
页码:487 / +
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Djurasovic, Mladen
    Gum, Jeffrey L.
    Crawford, Charles H., III
    Owens, Kirk, II
    Brown, Morgan
    Steele, Portia
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2020, 32 (01) : 31 - 35
  • [42] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis of L4-L5
    Jang, Hae-Dong
    Lee, Jae Chul
    Seo, Jong-Hyeon
    Roh, Young-Ho
    Choi, Sung-Woo
    Shin, Byung-Joon
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 158 : E10 - E18
  • [43] Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Zhang, Hao
    Zhou, Chuanli
    Wang, Chao
    Zhu, Kai
    Tu, Qihao
    Kong, Meng
    Zhao, Chong
    Ma, Xuexiao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2021, 14 : 549 - 558
  • [44] Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS® Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Wang, Michael Y.
    Chang, Hsuan Kan
    Grossman, Jay
    NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 83 (04) : 827 - 834
  • [45] A Comparative Study between Single-Level Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease
    Chang, Chung-Tse
    Lin, Yu-Hsien
    Wu, Yun-Che
    Shih, Cheng-Min
    Chen, Kun-Hui
    Pan, Chien-Chou
    Lee, Cheng-Hung
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (19)
  • [46] Clinical Effect of Minimally Invasive Microendoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation
    Chen, Gang
    Li, Long Biao
    Shangguan, Zhitao
    Wang, Zhenyu
    Liu, Wenge
    Li, Jiandong
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2022, 14 (12) : 3300 - 3312
  • [47] Psychological and Functional Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Yu, Bin
    Zhang, Jin
    Pan, Jie
    Wang, Yizhou
    Chen, YingGao
    Zhao, Weidong
    Wu, Desheng
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2021, 13 (04) : 1213 - 1226
  • [48] Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Fan, Guoxin
    Wu, Xinbo
    Yu, Shunzhi
    Sun, Qi
    Guan, Xiaofei
    Zhang, Hailong
    Gu, Xin
    He, Shisheng
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 2016
  • [49] Smoking Is Associated With Lower Satisfaction in Nondiabetic Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Single-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Gatoi, Cheryl
    Liow, Ming Han Lincoln
    Gold, Graham S.
    Mohan, Niraj
    Yongqiang, Chen Jerry
    Ling, Zhixing Marcus
    Soh, Reuben C. C.
    Yuc, Wai-Mun
    Guo, Chang-Ming
    Tan, Seang-Beng
    Chen, John Li-Tat
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2022, 35 (01): : E19 - E25
  • [50] Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Jagtiani, Pemla
    Karabacak, Mert
    Margetis, Konstantinos
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2024, 37 (06): : E225 - E238