Comparing the Incidence of Index Level Fusion Following Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy

被引:2
|
作者
McAnany, Steven J. [1 ]
Overley, Samuel C. [2 ]
Anwar, Muhammad A. [2 ]
Cutler, Holt S. [2 ]
Guzman, Javier Z. [2 ]
Kim, Jun S. [2 ]
Merrill, Robert K. [2 ]
Cho, Samuel K. [2 ]
Hecht, Andrew C. [2 ]
Qureshi, Sheeraz A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, St Louis, MO USA
[2] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, New York, NY 10029 USA
关键词
lumbar microdiscectomy; minimally invasive spine surgery; revision discectomy; fusion after discectomy; DISC HERNIATION; TERM OUTCOMES; DISKECTOMY; SUBPERIOSTEAL; COHORT; PAIN;
D O I
10.1177/2192568217718818
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: To determine the incidence of index level fusion following open or minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 174 patients with a symptomatic single-level lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus who underwent microdiscectomy via a mini-open approach (MIS; 39) or through a minimally invasive dilator tube (135). Outcomes of interest included revision microdiscectomy and the ultimate need for index level fusion. Continuous variables were analyzed with independent sample t test, and w 2 analysis was used for categorical data. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for patients that required index level fusion after lumbar microdiscectomy. Results: There was no difference in patient demographics in the open and MIS groups aside from length of follow-up (60.4 vs 40.03 months, P <.0001) and body mass index (24.72 vs 27.21, P = .03). The rate of revision microdiscectomy was not statistically significant between open and MIS approaches (10.3% vs 10.4%, P = .90). The rate of patients who ultimately required index level fusion approached significance, but was not statistically different between open and MIS approaches (10.3% vs 4.4%, P = .17). Multivariate regression analysis indicated that the need for eventual index level fusion after lumbar microdiscectomy was statistically predicted in smokers and those patients who underwent revision microdiscectomy (P <.05) in both open and MIS groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest a low likelihood of patients ultimately requiring fusion following microdiscectomy with predictors including smoking status and a history of revision microdiscectomy.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:11 / 16
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation
    Rasouli, Mohammad R.
    Rahimi-Movaghar, Vafa
    Shokraneh, Farhad
    Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar
    Chou, Roger
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2014, (09):
  • [2] Minimally invasive compared to open microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation
    Lau, Darryl
    Han, Seunggu J.
    Lee, Jasmine G.
    Lu, Daniel C.
    Chou, Dean
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, 18 (01) : 81 - 84
  • [3] Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar microdiscectomy
    Kimball, Jon
    Yew, Andrew
    Lu, Daniel C.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35
  • [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] Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease
    Gu, Guangfei
    Zhang, Hailong
    Fan, Guoxin
    He, Shisheng
    Cai, Xiaobing
    Shen, Xiaolong
    Guan, Xiaofei
    Zhou, Xu
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2014, 38 (04) : 817 - 824
  • [6] 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
  • [7] Minimally Invasive Approach versus Traditional Open Approach for One Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ntoukas, V.
    Mueller, A.
    MINIMALLY INVASIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2010, 53 (01) : 21 - 24
  • [8] A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Singh, Kern
    Nandyala, Sreeharsha V.
    Marquez-Lara, Alejandro
    Fineberg, Steven J.
    Oglesby, Mathew
    Pelton, Miguel A.
    Andersson, Gunnar B.
    Isayeva, Darya
    Jegier, Briana J.
    Phillips, Frank M.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 14 (08): : 1694 - 1701
  • [9] Incidence of graft extrusion following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Bakhsheshian, Joshua
    Khanna, Ryan
    Choy, Winward
    Lawton, Cort D.
    Nixon, Alex T.
    Wong, Albert P.
    Koski, Tyler R.
    Liu, John C.
    Song, John K.
    Dandaleh, Nader S.
    Smith, Zachary A.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 24 : 88 - 93
  • [10] 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