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
  • [31] Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Boomerang-Shaped Cage with Traditional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Ishihara, Yohei
    Morishita, Masutaro
    Miyaki, Jiro
    Kanzaki, Koji
    Toyone, Tomoaki
    SPINE SURGERY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 3 (01): : 71 - 78
  • [32] Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases
    He, Li-Ming
    Chen, Kuo-Tai
    Chen, Chien-Min
    Chang, Qiang
    Sun, Lin
    Zhang, Yan-Nan
    Chang, Jian-Jun
    Feng, Hao-Yu
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2022, 23 (01)
  • [33] Comparison of posterolateral fusion with and without additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Ha, Kee-Yong
    Na, Ki-Ho
    Shin, Jae-Hyuk
    Kim, Ki-Won
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2008, 21 (04): : 229 - 234
  • [34] Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases
    Li-Ming He
    Kuo-Tai Chen
    Chien-Min Chen
    Qiang Chang
    Lin Sun
    Yan-Nan Zhang
    Jian-Jun Chang
    Hao-Yu Feng
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23
  • [35] Minimal Access Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Spondylolisthesis COMMENTS
    Benzel, Edward C.
    Ball, Jonathon R.
    Hurlbert, R. John
    NEUROSURGERY, 2010, 66 (02) : 304 - 304
  • [36] Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Fessler, RG
    NEUROSURGERY, 2003, 52 (06) : 1512 - 1512
  • [37] Minimally invasive percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Khoo, LT
    Palmer, S
    Laich, DT
    Fessler, RG
    NEUROSURGERY, 2002, 51 (05) : S166 - S181
  • [38] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and segmental lumbar lordosis
    Kakkar, Rahul
    Sirigiri, P. B. R.
    Howieson, A.
    Raman, A. Siva
    Crawford, R. J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY, 2007, 17 (02): : 125 - 129
  • [39] Treatment of postdiscectomy low back pain by percutaneous posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus open posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws
    Gepstein, Reuven
    Shabat, Shay
    Reichel, Michael
    Pikarsky, Ilia
    Folman, Yoram
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2008, 8 (05): : 741 - 746
  • [40] Posterolateral Versus Posterior Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Urquhart, Jennifer C.
    Alnaghmoosh, Nabeel
    Gurr, Kevin R.
    Bailey, Stewart I.
    Tallon, Corinne
    Dehens, Shauna
    Arellano, M. Patricia Rosas
    Bailey, Christopher S.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2018, 31 (09): : E446 - E452