Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

被引:7
|
作者
He, Li-Ming [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Li, Jia-Rui [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wu, Hao-Ran [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chang, Qiang [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Guan, Xiao-Ming [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Ma, Zhuo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Feng, Hao-Yu [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Shanxi Acad Med Sci, Shanxi Bethune Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Taiyuan, Peoples R China
[2] Shanxi Med Univ, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Hosp 3, Taiyuan, Shanxi, Peoples R China
[3] Tongji Shanxi Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Taiyuan, Peoples R China
来源
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY | 2022年 / 9卷
关键词
unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression; percutaneous endoscopy; posterior lumbar interbody fusion; lumbar spondylolisthesis; lumbar spinal stenosis; SPINAL STENOSIS; TECHNICAL NOTE; LAMINECTOMY; OUTCOMES; BONE;
D O I
10.3389/fsurg.2022.915522
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation. Results: No differences in baseline data were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The operation time in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group (221.2 +/- 32.9 min) was significantly longer than that in the PLIF group (138.4 +/- 25.7 min) (p < 0.05), and the estimated blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were lower than those of the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05), but the postoperative VAS back pain score in the PE-PLIF group was significantly lower than that in the PLIF group (p < 0.05). The excellent and good rates in both groups were 96.4% according to MacNab's criteria. The disc height and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal were significantly improved in the two groups after surgery (p < 0.05), with no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). The fusion rates in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the PLIF group were 89.3% and 92.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, the cage subsidence rates were 14.3% and 17.9% (p > 0.05), respectively, and the lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction rates were 92.72 +/- 6.39% and 93.54 +/- 5.21%, respectively (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Grade II Spondylolisthesis
    Cai, Hong-xin
    Fan, Shun-wu
    Zhang, Jian-feng
    Ma, Jian-jun
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2015, 7 (01) : 81 - 82
  • [22] THE BIOMECHANICS OF POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION (PLIF) IN SPONDYLOLISTHESIS
    SCHLEGEL, KF
    PON, A
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1985, (193) : 115 - 119
  • [23] Comparing Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis as Assessed by the CARDS Classification System
    Issa, Tariq Ziad
    Lee, Yunsoo
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    Tran, Khoa S.
    Siegel, Nicholas
    Li, Sandy
    Becsey, Alexander
    Endersby, Kevin
    Kaye, Ian David
    Rihn, Jeffrey A.
    Kurd, Mark F.
    Canseco, Jose A.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 175 : E861 - E875
  • [24] A retrospective controlled study protocol of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis
    Yi, Ping
    Tang, Xiangsheng
    Yang, Feng
    Tan, Mingsheng
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (44) : E22878
  • [25] Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)
    Liu, Gang
    Liu, Weixi
    Jin, Danjie
    Yan, Penglei
    Yang, Zhicheng
    Liu, Ruiping
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 23 (02): : 271 - 280
  • [26] Biomechanical Characterization of Unilateral and Bilateral Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs
    Peng, Xiangping
    Li, Shaoqing
    Yang, Sidong
    Swink, Isaac
    Carbone, Jake
    Cheng, Boyle
    Wu, Zhanyong
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 2022
  • [27] Comparison of unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral posterior interbody fusion with simple discectomy at degenerative disc herniations
    Karabekir, Hamit S.
    Atar, Elmas K.
    Yaycioglu, Soner
    Yildizhan, Ahmet
    NEUROSCIENCES, 2008, 13 (03) : 248 - 252
  • [28] Biomechanical evaluation of Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis
    Li, Jia-Rui
    Yan, Yang
    Wu, Xiao-Gang
    He, Li-Ming
    Feng, Hao-Yu
    COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2024, 27 (03) : 285 - 295
  • [29] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion via a unilateral approach
    Shin, Hyun Chul
    Yi, Seong
    Kim, Keung Nyun
    Kim, Sang Hyun
    Yoon, Do Heum
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 47 (03) : 319 - 325
  • [30] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of slippage of vertebrae for isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis: Unilateral versus bilateral interbody fusion
    Song, Xin
    Ren, Donglin
    Wu, Desheng
    Zhang, Feng
    Han, Shuai
    Wang, Jian
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 203