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
  • [21] Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study
    Chen, Hao
    Zheng, Goudi
    Bian, Zhenyu
    Hou, Changju
    Li, Maoqiang
    Zhang, Zhen
    Zhu, Liulong
    Wang, Xuepeng
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2023, 18 (01)
  • [22] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kevin Phan
    Prashanth J. Rao
    Andrew C. Kam
    Ralph J. Mobbs
    European Spine Journal, 2015, 24 : 1017 - 1030
  • [23] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease
    Tsahtsarlis, Antonio
    Wood, Martin
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 21 (11) : 2300 - 2305
  • [24] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumber interbody fusion and degenerative lumbar spine disease
    Antonio Tsahtsarlis
    Martin Wood
    European Spine Journal, 2012, 21 : 2300 - 2305
  • [25] Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease
    Zhang, Xuelei
    Zhang, Yu
    Gu, Zuchao
    Li, Guo
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [26] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Phan, Kevin
    Rao, Prashanth J.
    Kam, Andrew C.
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 24 (05) : 1017 - 1030
  • [27] Budget Impact Analysis of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A European Hospital Perspective
    Bassani, Roberto
    Galvain, Thibaut
    Battaglia, Suzanne
    Maheswaran, Hendramoorthy
    Wright, George
    Kambli, Ankita
    Piemontese, Alessandra
    CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2024, 16 : 13 - 24
  • [28] 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
  • [29] Comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis
    Sun Zhi-jian
    Li Wen-jing
    Zhao Yu
    Qiu Gui-xing
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 126 (20) : 3962 - 3971
  • [30] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Two Techniques
    Tender, G. C.
    Serban, D.
    CHIRURGIA, 2014, 109 (06) : 812 - 821