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
  • [41] Oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yun-lu Wang
    Xi-yong Li
    Lun Liu
    Song-feng Li
    Peng-fei Han
    Xiao-dong Li
    Neurosurgical Review, 46
  • [42] Oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Yun-lu
    Li, Xi-yong
    Liu, Lun
    Li, Song-feng
    Han, Peng-fei
    Li, Xiao-dong
    NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW, 2023, 46 (01)
  • [43] 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
  • [44] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ahn, Junyoung
    Tabaraee, Ehsan
    Singh, Kern
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (06): : 222 - 225
  • [45] Comparison of adjacent segment disease after minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Yee, Timothy J.
    Terman, Samuel W.
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2014, 21 (10) : 1796 - 1801
  • [46] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Hoffmann, Christoph-Heinrich
    Kandziora, Frank
    OPERATIVE ORTHOPADIE UND TRAUMATOLOGIE, 2020, 32 (03): : 180 - 191
  • [47] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Multilevel: Comparison with Conventional Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
    Lee, Won-chul
    Park, Jeong-Yoon
    Kim, Kyung Hyun
    Kuh, Sung Uk
    Chin, Dong Kyu
    Kim, Keun Su
    Cho, Yong Eun
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 85 : 236 - 243
  • [48] 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 - +
  • [49] 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, 129 (16) : 1969 - 1986
  • [50] Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis
    Wang, Yang-Yi
    Chung, Yu-Hsuan
    Huang, Chun-Hsien
    Hu, Ming-Hsien
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2024, 19 (01)