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
  • [41] POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AND PLATES
    STEFFEE, AD
    SITKOWSKI, DJ
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1988, (227) : 99 - 102
  • [42] Advances in posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Brislin, B
    Vaccaro, AR
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2002, 33 (02) : 367 - +
  • [43] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion implants
    Rickert, M.
    Arabmotlagh, M.
    Carstens, C.
    Behrbalk, E.
    Rauschmann, M.
    Fleege, C.
    ORTHOPADE, 2015, 44 (02): : 162 - 169
  • [44] Our experience with the use of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of patients with spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine
    Fishchenko, Ia, V
    Roy, I., V
    Vladymirov, O. A.
    Kravchuk, L. D.
    Blonskyi, R., I
    PATHOLOGIA, 2020, (03): : 356 - 362
  • [45] Posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Madhu, Tiruveedhula S.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDICS, 2008, 22 (06): : 406 - 413
  • [46] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Comment
    Alday, R
    NEUROCIRUGIA, 2001, 12 (05): : 455 - 455
  • [47] Posterior lumbar interbody fusion - Response
    Okuda, Shinya
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2007, 6 (02) : 195 - 195
  • [48] POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION UPDATED
    CLOWARD, RB
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 1985, (193) : 16 - 19
  • [49] THE FAILED POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION
    WETZEL, FT
    LAROCCA, H
    SPINE, 1991, 16 (07) : 839 - 845
  • [50] Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion for the Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
    Luo, Jiaquan
    Cao, Kai
    Yu, Ting
    Li, Liangping
    Huang, Sheng
    Gong, Ming
    Cao, Cong
    Zou, Xuenong
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (07): : E915 - E922