Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Diseases: A Matched Case-Control

被引:5
|
作者
Shi, Liang [1 ]
Ding, Tao [2 ]
Shi, Yihua [1 ]
Wang, Fang [3 ]
Wu, Chengcong [4 ]
机构
[1] Hubei Univ Med, Xiangyang Peoples Hosp 1, Dept Orthoped, Xiangyang City, Hubei, Peoples R China
[2] Sheng Li OilField Cent Hosp, Dept Spine Surg, Dongying, Shandong, Peoples R China
[3] Qujing Second Peoples Hosp Yunnan Prov, Dept Pathol, Qujing City, Yunnan, Peoples R China
[4] Kunming Med Univ, Qujing Peoples Hosp 1, Affiliated Qujing Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Qujing City, Yunnan, Peoples R China
关键词
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; Complication; Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis; transforaminal lumbar fusion; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Operative time; CLINICAL GUIDELINE; SPINAL STENOSIS; DIAGNOSIS; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.wneu.2022.09.013
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE: We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF). -METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. -RESULTS: Our study included 64 patients, with 32 pa-tients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluo-roscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain vi-sual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant.CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.
引用
收藏
页码:E1231 / E1240
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Park, Chun-Kun
    Hur, Jung-Woo
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2019, 59 (06) : 222 - 230
  • [32] Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Luan, Haopeng
    Peng, Cong
    Liu, Kai
    Song, Xinghua
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2023, 18 (01)
  • [33] Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Haopeng Luan
    Cong Peng
    Kai Liu
    Xinghua Song
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 18
  • [34] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie, Lei
    Wu, Wen-Jian
    Liang, Yu
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - +
  • [35] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie Lei
    Wu WenJian
    Liang Yu
    Department of Orthopedics Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai China
    Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases with Integrated ChineseWestern Medicine Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai China
    中华医学杂志(英文版), 2016, (16) : 1969 - 1986
  • [36] Clinical outcomes of two minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases
    Tian Y.
    Liu X.
    European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2016, 26 (7) : 745 - 751
  • [37] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Review of Techniques and Outcomes
    Karikari, Isaac O.
    Isaacs, Robert E.
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (26) : S294 - S301
  • [38] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Two Techniques
    Tender, G. C.
    Serban, D.
    CHIRURGIA, 2014, 109 (06) : 812 - 821
  • [39] 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
  • [40] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Kim, Chi Heon
    Easley, Kirk
    Lee, Jun-Seok
    Hong, Jae-Young
    Virk, Michael
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    Yoon, Sangwook T.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 10 : 143S - 150S