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
  • [31] Meta-analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases
    Dun Liu
    Xinyu Huang
    Chongyang Zhang
    Qin Wang
    Hua Jiang
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 19 (1)
  • [32] Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
    Hu, Xijian
    Yan, Lei
    Jin, Xinjie
    Liu, Haifeng
    Chai, Jing
    Zhao, Bin
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 14 (01) : 295 - 305
  • [33] Application and thinking of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases
    Gu, Shao
    Li, Haifeng
    Wang, Daxing
    Dai, Xuejun
    Liu, Chengwei
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2022, 10 (06)
  • [34] 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
  • [35] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery
    Brodano, Giovanni B.
    Martikos, Konstantinos
    Lolli, Francesco
    Gasbarrini, Alessandro
    Cioni, Alfredo
    Bandiera, Stefano
    Di Silvestre, Mario
    Boriani, Stefano
    Greggi, Tiziana
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (10): : E559 - E564
  • [36] 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
  • [37] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques
    Lee, Michael J.
    Mok, James
    Patel, Pranay
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2018, 26 (04) : 124 - 131
  • [38] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for dual-segment lower lumbar degenerative disease
    Wang, Wei
    Wang, Zhangfu
    Hong, Zhenghua
    Chen, Haixiao
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2018, 13 (04) : 525 - 532
  • [39] Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Bovonratwet, Patawut
    Samuel, Andre M.
    Mok, Jung Kee
    Vaishnav, Avani S.
    Morse, Kyle W.
    Song, Junho
    Steinhaus, Michael E.
    Jordan, Yusef J.
    Gang, Catherine H.
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    SPINE, 2022, 47 (21) : 1505 - 1514
  • [40] Efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease
    Gao, Aiguo
    Zhao, Peng
    Zhou, Yingchuan
    Zhang, Qing
    Cheng, Li
    BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH-INDIA, 2016, 27 (04): : 1309 - 1315