Clinical and Radiographic Comparison Between Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Facetectomies

被引:11
|
作者
Le, Hai [1 ]
Anderson, Ryan [1 ]
Phan, Eileen [1 ]
Wick, Joseph [1 ]
Barber, Joshua [1 ]
Roberto, Rolando [1 ]
Klineberg, Eric [1 ]
Javidan, Yashar [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
关键词
spinal fusion; lordosis; minimally invasive surgery; lumbar interbody fusion; spondylosis; spondylolisthesis; RESTORATION; LORDOSIS; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; RETURN; WORK; TLIF;
D O I
10.1177/2192568220932879
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design: Age- and sex-matched cohort study. Objectives: To compare outcomes after open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with bilateral facetectomies. Methods: We retrospectively compared patients who underwent single- or 2-level MIS-TLIF with an age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort. Surgical data was collected for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and drain use. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), complications, and reoperations. Lumbar radiographs were measured for changes in global lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL). Results: Between 2016 and 2020, 38 MIS-TLIF patients were compared with 38 open-TLIF patients. No subfascial drain was used in the MIS-TLIF group (P < .001). The MIS-TLIF group had longer operative time (310.8 vs 276.5 minutes; P = .046) but less EBL (282.4 vs 420.8 mL; P = .007). LOS (P = .15), complication rates (P = .50), and revision rates (P = .17) were equivalent. VAS and ODI improved but did not differ between groups. In the open-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 81.6% and 86.9% of cases, respectively. In the MIS-TLIF group, LL and SL were restored or improved in 86.8% and 97.4% of cases, respectively. There were no differences in changes in LL and SL between groups. Conclusions: Compared with the age- and sex-matched open-TLIF cohort, patients undergoing MIS-TLIF had reduced EBL and subfascial drain use but increased operative time. There were no differences in complications, reoperations, or LOS. Both groups demonstrated improvement in VAS and ODI. MIS-TLIF with bilateral facetectomies provided equivalent improvements in global and segmental LL.
引用
收藏
页码:903 / 910
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Considerations When Contemplating Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Chou, Dean
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 84 (05) : 1205 - 1206
  • [22] Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease
    Zhang, Xuelei
    Zhang, Yu
    Gu, Zuchao
    Li, Guo
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [23] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques
    Lee, Michael J.
    Mok, James
    Patel, Pranay
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2018, 26 (04) : 124 - 131
  • [24] Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices
    McMordie, Joseph H.
    Schmidt, Kyle P.
    Gard, Andrew P.
    Gillis, Christopher C.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 86 (02) : E147 - E155
  • [25] 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
  • [26] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis
    Zhang, Qing-Yi
    Tan, Jie
    Huang, Kai
    Xie, Hui-Qi
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2021, 22 (01)
  • [27] Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in obese patients
    Lau, Darryl
    Khan, Adam
    Terman, Samuel W.
    Yee, Timothy
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35 (02)
  • [28] Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis
    Wang, Yang-Yi
    Chung, Yu-Hsuan
    Huang, Chun-Hsien
    Hu, Ming-Hsien
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2024, 19 (01)
  • [29] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Phan, Kevin
    Rao, Prashanth J.
    Kam, Andrew C.
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 24 (05) : 1017 - 1030
  • [30] Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Park, Chun-Kun
    Hur, Jung-Woo
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2019, 59 (06) : 222 - 230