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
  • [31] Perioperative results following open and minimally invasive single-level lumbar discectomy
    Lee, Peter
    Liu, John C.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, 18 (12) : 1667 - 1670
  • [32] Clinical and Radiological Comparison between Three Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Fusion Techniques for Single-Level Lumbar Isthmic and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Minimally Invasive Surgical Posterolateral Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Midline Lumbar Fusion
    Elmekaty, Mohamed
    Kotani, Yoshihisa
    El Mehy, Emad
    Robinson, Yohan
    El Tantawy, Ahmed
    Sekiguchi, Ivan
    Fujita, Ryo
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 12 (05) : 870 - 879
  • [33] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [34] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Vazan, Martin
    Gempt, Jens
    Meyer, Bernhard
    Buchmann, Niels
    Ryang, Yu-Mi
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2017, 159 (06) : 1137 - 1146
  • [35] 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
  • [36] Ten-Year Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Kwon, Ji-Won
    Park, Yung
    Lee, Byung Ho
    Yoon, So Ra
    Ha, Joong-Won
    Kim, Hyunkyo
    Suk, Kyung-Soo
    Moon, Seong-Hwan
    Kim, Hak-Sun
    Lee, Hwan-Mo
    SPINE, 2022, 47 (11) : 773 - 780
  • [37] 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
  • [38] Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) Versus Traditional Open Approach Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Fried, Tristan B.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    Anderson, D. Greg
    Donnally, Chester J., III
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2022, 35 (02): : 59 - 62
  • [39] Minimally invasive lumbar fusion
    Foley, KT
    Holly, LT
    Schwender, JD
    SPINE, 2003, 28 (15) : S26 - S35
  • [40] Reoperation Rates Due to Adjacent Segment Disease Following Primary 1 to 2-Level Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Galetta, Matthew S.
    Lorentz, Nathan A.
    Lan, Rae
    Chan, Calvin
    Zabat, Michelle A.
    Raman, Tina
    Protopsaltis, Themistocles S.
    Fischer, Charla R.
    SPINE, 2023, 48 (18) : 1295 - 1299