Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease

被引:97
|
作者
Gu, Guangfei [1 ]
Zhang, Hailong [1 ]
Fan, Guoxin [1 ]
He, Shisheng [1 ]
Cai, Xiaobing [1 ]
Shen, Xiaolong [1 ]
Guan, Xiaofei [1 ]
Zhou, Xu [1 ]
机构
[1] Tongji Univ, Sch Med, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 10, Dept Orthopaed, Shanghai 200072, Peoples R China
关键词
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Minimally invasive; Two-level; Lumbar degenerative disease; SPINE; COMPLICATIONS; FIXATION; OUTCOMES; SURGERY; MUSCLE; SCREW; TLIF;
D O I
10.1007/s00264-013-2169-x
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 82 patients, who underwent two-level minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) from March 2010 to December 2011. Forty-four patients underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) (group A) and 38 patients underwent the traditional open TLIF (group B). Demographic data and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups before surgery (p > 0.05). Peri-operative data, clinical and radiological outcomes between the two groups were compared. The mean follow-up period was 20.6 +/- 4.5 months for group A and 20.0 +/- 3.3 months for group B (p > 0.05). No significant difference existed in operating time between the two group (p > 0.05). X-ray exposure time was significantly longer for MITLIF compared to open cases. Intra-operative blood loss and duration of postoperatively hospital stay of group A were significantly superior to those of group B (p < 0.05). On postoperative day three, MITLIF patients had significantly less pain compared to patients with the open procedure. No statistical difference existed in pre-operative and latest VAS value of back pain (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP), pre-operative and latest ODI between the two groups. The fusion rate of the two groups was similar (p < 0.05). Complications included small dural tear, superficial wound infection and overlong screws. When comparing the total complications, no significant difference existed between the groups (p > 0.05). MITLIF offers several potential advantages including postoperative back pain and leg pain, intra-operative blood loss, transfusion and duration of hospital stay postoperatively in treating two-level lumbar degenerative disease. However, it required much more radiation exposure.
引用
收藏
页码:817 / 824
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease
    Guangfei Gu
    Hailong Zhang
    Guoxin Fan
    Shisheng He
    Xiaobing Cai
    Xiaolong Shen
    Xiaofei Guan
    Xu Zhou
    International Orthopaedics, 2014, 38 : 817 - 824
  • [2] Comparison of bilateral versus unilateral decompression incision of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases
    Yongzhao Zhao
    Yanjie Zhu
    Hailong Zhang
    Chuanfeng Wang
    Shisheng He
    Guangfei Gu
    International Orthopaedics, 2018, 42 : 2835 - 2842
  • [3] Comparison of bilateral versus unilateral decompression incision of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases
    Zhao, Yongzhao
    Zhu, Yanjie
    Zhang, Hailong
    Wang, Chuanfeng
    He, Shisheng
    Gu, Guangfei
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2018, 42 (12) : 2835 - 2842
  • [4] 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
  • [5] MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION IN DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR SPINE DISEASE
    Gupta, Pankaj
    Sharma, Arvind
    Singh, Jitendra
    Deen, Shameer
    Tanwar, Akansha
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2015, 4 (105): : 17055 - 17057
  • [6] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Isthmic Versus Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Massel, Dustin H.
    Mayo, Benjamin C.
    Shifflett, Grant D.
    Bohl, Daniel D.
    Louie, Philip K.
    Basques, Bryce A.
    Long, William W.
    Modi, Krishna D.
    Hijji, Fady Y.
    Narain, Ankur S.
    Singh, Kern
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 14 (02): : 115 - 124
  • [7] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Unilateral Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Disease
    Wang, Hui-wang
    Hu, Yong-cheng
    Wu, Zhan-yong
    Wu, Hua-rong
    Wu, Chun-fu
    Zhang, Lian-suo
    Xu, Wei-kun
    Fan, Hui-long
    Cai, Jin-sheng
    Ma, Jian-qing
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2017, 9 (03) : 277 - 283
  • [8] Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study
    Xu, Hongyao
    Yu, Lei
    Xiao, Bing
    Zhao, Hong
    Gu, Xin
    Gao, Zengxin
    Wang, Weiheng
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 183 : E98 - E108
  • [9] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kulkarni, Arvind G.
    Bohra, Hussain
    Dhruv, Abhilash
    Sarraf, Abhishek
    Bassi, Anupreet
    Patil, Vishwanath M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2016, 50 (05) : 464 - 472
  • [10] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Arvind G. Kulkarni
    Hussain Bohra
    Abhilash Dhruv
    Abhishek Sarraf
    Anupreet Bassi
    Vishwanath M. Patil
    Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2016, 50 : 464 - 472