Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Experience with 2-Year Follow-Up

被引:74
作者
Wu, Junlong [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Huan [1 ]
Ao, Shengxiang [1 ]
Zheng, Wenjie [1 ]
Li, Changqing [1 ]
Li, Haiyin [1 ]
Pan, Yong [1 ]
Zhang, Chao [1 ]
Zhou, Yue [1 ]
机构
[1] Army Med Univ, Affiliated Xinqiao Hosp 2, Dept Orthopaed, Chongqing 400037, Peoples R China
[2] Fourth Mil Chinese People Liberat Army, Dept Orthopaed, Xining 810007, Qinghai, Peoples R China
关键词
POSTERIOR;
D O I
10.1155/2018/5806037
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Objective. Endoscopic surgeries have been attempted in the field of lumbar decompression and fusion surgery in the past decade. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) is a new-emerging technique taking advantages of an anatomical (Kambin's triangle) to achieve simultaneous decompression and fusion under endoscopic visualization. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PELIF technique with general anesthesia and neuromonitoring. Methods. The authors present the details of PELIF technique with general anesthesia and neuromonitoring. The first 7 consecutive patients treated with minimum of 2 year's follow-up were included. Clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and the Short Form-36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36) in the immediate preoperative period and during the follow-up period. Results. All patients underwent single-level PELIF surgery successfully and without conversion to open surgery. The average age was 56.0 +/- 13.0 years. All patients had Grade I degenerative/isthmic spondylolisthesis and 4 patients coexisted with disc herniation. The mean operative time was 167.5 +/- 30.9 minutes, and intraoperative blood loss was 70.0 +/- 24.5 ml. Postoperative drainage volume was 24.5 +/- 18.3 ml. The differences in the VAS scores for low back pain and leg pain between preoperative and follow-up were significant (P<0.05). The SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) improved from 38.83 +/- 4.17 to 55.67 +/- 2.58 (P<0.001). The SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) improved from 43.83 +/- 3.13 to 57.50 +/- 5.36 (P=0.001). The ODI score improvement rate was 33.7 +/- 3.7%. All cases demonstrated radiopaque graft in the intervertebral disc space consistent with solid arthrodesis. Conclusions. PELIF technique seems to be a promising surgical technique for selected appropriate patients, with the minimal invasive advantages in decreased blood, shortage of ambulation time, and hospital stay, compared with MIS-TLIF. Because of limited Kambin's triangle space and the exiting nerve root nearby, PELIF is still a challenging technique. Future advancement and development in instrument and cage design are vital for application and popularization of this technique. Prospective, randomized, controlled studies with large sample size on PELIF technique are still needed to prove its safety, efficacy, and minimal invasive advantages.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ENCY ANIMAL COGNITIO
[2]   Exiting root injury in transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: preoperative image considerations for safety [J].
Choi, Il ;
Ahn, Jae-Ouk ;
So, Wan-Soo ;
Lee, Seung-joon ;
Choi, In-Jae ;
Kim, Hoon .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2013, 22 (11) :2481-2487
[3]   How often is minimally invasive minimally effective: what are the complication rates for minimally invasive surgery? [J].
Epstein, Nancy E. .
SURGICAL NEUROLOGY, 2008, 70 (04) :386-389
[4]   Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases [J].
Fan Shunwu ;
Zhao Xing ;
Zhao Fengdong ;
Fang Xiangqian .
SPINE, 2010, 35 (17) :1615-1620
[5]   Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease using a minimally invasive B-twin expandable spinal spacer [J].
Folman, Y ;
Lee, TH ;
Silvera, JR ;
Gepstein, R .
JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2003, 16 (05) :455-460
[6]   Comparative Effectiveness and Economic Evaluations of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Systematic Review [J].
Goldstein, Christina L. ;
Phillips, Frank M. ;
Rampersaud, Y. Raja .
SPINE, 2016, 41 (08) :S74-S89
[7]   Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review [J].
Goldstein, Christina L. ;
Macwan, Kevin ;
Sundararajan, Kala ;
Rampersaud, Y. Raja .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 24 (03) :416-427
[8]   The anatomic rationale for transforaminal endoscopic interbody fusion: a cadaveric analysis [J].
Hardenbrook, Mitchell ;
Lombardo, Sergio ;
Wilson, Miles C. ;
Telfeian, Albert E. .
NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2016, 40 (02) :1-4
[9]   Application of a narrow-surface cage in full endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [J].
He, Er-xing ;
Guo, Jing ;
Ling, Qin-jie ;
Yin, Zhi-xun ;
Wang, Ying ;
Li, Ming .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 42 :83-89
[10]   Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results [J].
Heo, Dong Hwa ;
Son, Sang Kyu ;
Eum, Jin Hwa ;
Park, Choon Keun .
NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2017, 43 (02)