Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy Bilateral Decompression and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for One-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

被引:14
作者
Hua, Wenbin [1 ]
Wang, Bingjin [1 ]
Ke, Wencan [1 ]
Xiang, Qian [1 ]
Wu, Xinghuo [1 ]
Zhang, Yukun [1 ]
Li, Shuai [1 ]
Yang, Shuhua [1 ]
Wu, Qiang [1 ]
Yang, Cao [1 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Tongji Med Coll, Union Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Wuhan, Peoples R China
来源
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY | 2021年 / 7卷
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression; minimally invasive; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; lumbar spinal stenosis; degenerative spondylolisthesis;
D O I
10.3389/fsurg.2020.596327
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Both lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) have been used to treat one-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis, while the differences of the clinical outcomes are still uncertain. Methods: Among 60 consecutive patients included, 24 surgeries were performed by LE-ULBD and 36 surgeries were performed by MI-TUF. Patient demographics, operation characteristics and complications were recorded. Sagittal parameters, including slip percentage (SP) and slip angle (SA) were compared. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Follow-up examinations were conducted at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: The estimated blood loss, time to ambulation and length of hospitalization of the LE-ULBD group were shorter than the MI-TUF group. Preoperative and final follow-up SP of the LE-ULBD group was of no significant difference, while final follow-up SP of the MI-TLIF group was significantly improved compared with preoperative SR The postoperative mean VAS and ODI scores decreased significantly in both LE-ULBD group and MI-TUF group. According to the modified Macnab criteria, the outcomes rated as excellent/good rate were 95.8 and 97.2%, respectively, in both LE-ULBD group and MI-TUF group. Intraoperative complication rate of the LE-ULBD and the MI-TLIF group were 4.2 and 0%, respectively. One case of intraoperative epineurium injury was observed in the LE-ULBD group. Postoperative complication rate of the LE-ULBD and the MI-TLIF group were 0 and 5.6%, respectively. One case with transient urinary retention and one case with pleural effusion were observed in the MI-TLIF group. Conclusion: Both LE-ULBD and MI-TLIF are safe and effective to treat one-level LSS with degenerative spondylolisthesis.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Minimally Invasive Foraminotomy Through Tubular Retractors via a Contralateral Approach in Patients With Unilateral Radiculopathy
    Alimi, Marjan
    Njoku, Innocent, Jr.
    Cong, Guang-Ting
    Pyo, Se Young
    Hofstetter, Christoph P.
    Grunert, Peter
    Haertl, Roger
    [J]. OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2014, 10 (03) : 436 - 446
  • [2] A Prospective Comparative Study of 2 Minimally Invasive Decompression Procedures for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) Versus Muscle-Preserving Interlaminar Decompression (MILD)
    Arai, Yoshiyasu
    Hirai, Takashi
    Yoshii, Toshitaka
    Sakai, Kenichiro
    Kato, Tsuyoshi
    Enomoto, Mitsuhiro
    Matsumoto, Renpei
    Yamada, Tsuyoshi
    Kawabata, Shigenori
    Shinomiya, Kenichi
    Okawa, Atsushi
    [J]. SPINE, 2014, 39 (04) : 332 - 340
  • [3] Minimally invasive decompression for lumbar stenosis and disc herniation
    Armin, Sean S.
    Holly, Langston T.
    Khoo, Larry T.
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2008, 25 (02)
  • [4] Indications for surgical fusion of the cervical and lumbar motion segment
    Bambakidis, NC
    Feiz-Erfan, I
    Klopfenstein, JD
    Sonntag, VKH
    [J]. SPINE, 2005, 30 (16) : S2 - S6
  • [5] A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Chan, Andrew K.
    Bisson, Erica F.
    Bydon, Mohamad
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Foley, Kevin T.
    Potts, Eric A.
    Shaffrey, Christopher, I
    Shaffrey, Mark E.
    Coric, Domagoj
    Knightly, John J.
    Park, Paul
    Wang, Michael Y.
    Fu, Kai-Ming
    Slotkin, Jonathan R.
    Asher, Anthony L.
    Virk, Michael S.
    Kerezoudis, Panagiotis
    Alvi, Mohammed Ali
    Guan, Jian
    Haid, Regis W.
    Mummaneni, Praveen, V
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2019, 46 (05)
  • [6] Radiographic evaluation of postoperative bone regrowth after microscopic bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Dohzono, Sho
    Matsumura, Akira
    Terai, Hidetomi
    Toyoda, Hiromitsu
    Suzuki, Akinobu
    Nakamura, Hiroaki
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2013, 18 (05) : 472 - 478
  • [8] A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Forsth, Peter
    Olafsson, Gylfi
    Carlsson, Thomas
    Frost, Anders
    Borgstrom, Fredrik
    Fritzell, Peter
    Ohagen, Patrik
    Michaelsson, Karl
    Sanden, Bengt
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2016, 374 (15) : 1413 - 1423
  • [9] Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative Grade I spondylolisthesis
    Ghogawala, Z
    Benzel, EC
    Amin-Hanjani, S
    Barker, FG
    Harrington, JF
    Magge, SN
    Strugar, J
    Couman, JVCE
    Borges, LF
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2004, 1 (03): : 267 - 272
  • [10] Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Ghogawala, Zoher
    Dziura, James
    Butler, William E.
    Dai, Feng
    Terrin, Norma
    Magge, Subu N.
    Coumans, Jean-Valery C. E.
    Harrington, J. Fred
    Amin-Hanjani, Sepideh
    Schwartz, J. Sanford
    Sonntag, Volker K. H.
    Barker, Fred G., II
    Benzel, Edward C.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2016, 374 (15) : 1424 - 1434