Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Diseases: A Matched Case-Control

被引:6
作者
Shi, Liang [1 ]
Ding, Tao [2 ]
Shi, Yihua [1 ]
Wang, Fang [3 ]
Wu, Chengcong [4 ]
机构
[1] Hubei Univ Med, Xiangyang Peoples Hosp 1, Dept Orthoped, Xiangyang City, Hubei, Peoples R China
[2] Sheng Li OilField Cent Hosp, Dept Spine Surg, Dongying, Shandong, Peoples R China
[3] Qujing Second Peoples Hosp Yunnan Prov, Dept Pathol, Qujing City, Yunnan, Peoples R China
[4] Kunming Med Univ, Qujing Peoples Hosp 1, Affiliated Qujing Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Qujing City, Yunnan, Peoples R China
关键词
Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; Complication; Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis; transforaminal lumbar fusion; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Operative time; CLINICAL GUIDELINE; SPINAL STENOSIS; DIAGNOSIS; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.wneu.2022.09.013
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE: We compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF). -METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent single-segment Mis-TLIF or Endo-TLIF between June 2016 and June 2019 at our hospital. The patients in each treatment group were matched 1:1 for sex, age, and type of lumbar degenerative disease, and their clinical outcomes were compared at discharge and at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. -RESULTS: Our study included 64 patients, with 32 pa-tients in each treatment group. Operative time and fluo-roscopy time were significantly higher in the Endo-TLIF versus Mis-TLIF groups, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and the low back pain vi-sual analog scale score at discharge were significantly lower. Both treatments achieved exact interbody fusion at the final-follow up. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score or Oswestry Disability Index between the groups at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Complication rates were higher in the Endo-TLIF group (21.9%) than in the Mis-TLIF group (6.2%), although the difference was not significant.CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no difference in the long-term outcomes between the treatments, Endo-TLIF had less blood loss and a lower postoperative drainage volume and low back pain visual analog scale score at discharge than Mis-TLIF. However, the longer operative time and potentially higher complication rate of Endo-TLIF suggest that surgeons may need to overcome the steeper learning curve than the procedure of Mis-TLIF.
引用
收藏
页码:E1231 / E1240
页数:10
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Prevalence of lumbar spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in patients with degenerative spinal disease [J].
Aoki, Yasuchika ;
Takahashi, Hiroshi ;
Nakajima, Arata ;
Kubota, Go ;
Watanabe, Atsuya ;
Nakajima, Takayuki ;
Eguchi, Yawara ;
Orita, Sumihisa ;
Fukuchi, Hiroyuki ;
Yanagawa, Noriyuki ;
Nakagawa, Koichi ;
Ohtori, Seiji .
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
[2]   Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Definition, Natural History, Conservative Management, and Surgical Treatment [J].
Bydon, Mohamad ;
Alvi, Mohammed Ali ;
Goyal, Anshit .
NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2019, 30 (03) :299-+
[3]   Minimally invasive lumbar fusion [J].
Foley, KT ;
Holly, LT ;
Schwender, JD .
SPINE, 2003, 28 (15) :S26-S35
[4]   Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF [J].
Ge, David H. ;
Stekas, Nicholas D. ;
Varlotta, Christopher G. ;
Fischer, Charla R. ;
Petrizzo, Anthony ;
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S. ;
Passias, Peter G. ;
Errico, Thomas J. ;
Buckland, Aaron J. .
SPINE, 2019, 44 (09) :E555-E560
[5]   Comparison of hidden blood loss and clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [J].
Ge, Meng ;
Zhang, Yuan ;
Ying, Hang ;
Feng, Chenchen ;
Li, Yanlei ;
Tian, Jinlong ;
Zhao, Tingxiao ;
Shao, Haiyu ;
Huang, Yazeng .
INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2022, 46 (09) :2063-2070
[6]   A Modified Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique: Preliminary Clinical Results of 96 Cases [J].
Gong, Junfeng ;
Huang, Zheng ;
Liu, Huan ;
Zhang, Chao ;
Zheng, Wenjie ;
Li, Changqing ;
Tang, Yu ;
Zhou, Yue .
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2021, 8
[7]   Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it? [J].
Jacquot, Frederic ;
Gastambide, Daniel .
INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2013, 37 (08) :1507-1510
[8]   Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis A Review [J].
Katz, Jeffrey N. ;
Zimmerman, Zoe E. ;
Mass, Hanna ;
Makhni, Melvin C. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2022, 327 (17) :1688-1699
[9]   Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion [J].
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
[10]   Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: operative and clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up [J].
Kolcun, John Paul G. ;
Brusko, G. Damian ;
Basil, Gregory W. ;
Epstein, Richard ;
Wang, Michael Y. .
NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2019, 46 (04)