Five-Year Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Matched-Pair Comparison Study

被引:192
|
作者
Seng, Chusheng [1 ]
Siddiqui, Mashfiqul A. [1 ]
Wong, Kenneth P. L. [1 ]
Zhang, Karen [1 ]
Yeo, William [1 ]
Tan, Seang Beng [1 ]
Yue, Wai-Mun [1 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Singapore 169608, Singapore
关键词
minimally invasive techniques; open; spinal fusion rates; clinical outcomes; 5; year; BACK MUSCLE INJURY; SPINE SURGERY; COMPLICATIONS; MULTICENTER; PERFORMANCE; PRESSURE; DISEASE; CAGE;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Objective. To compare midterm clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Summary of Background Data. Open TLIF is a proven technique to achieve fusion in symptomatic spinal deformities and instabilities. The possible advantages of MIS TLIF include reduced blood loss, less pain, and shorter hospitalization. To date, there is no published data comparing their midterm outcomes. Methods. From 2004-2007, 40 cases of open TLIF were matched paired with 40 cases of MIS TLIF for age, sex, body mass index, and the levels on which the spine was operated. Oswestry Disability Index, neurogenic symptom score, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain were obtained before surgery, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. Fusion rates were assessed using Bridwell classification. Results. Fluoroscopic time (MIS: 55.2 s, open: 16.4 s, P < 0.001) was longer in MIS cases. Operative time (MIS: 185 min, open: 166 min, P = 0.085) was not significantly longer in MIS cases. MIS had less blood loss (127 mL) versus open (405 mL, P < 0.001) procedures. Morphine use for MIS cases (8.5 mg) was less compared with open (24.2 mg, P = 0.006). Patients who underwent MIS (1.5 d) ambulated earlier than those who underwent open fusion (3 d, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent MIS (3.6 d) had shorter hospitalization than those who underwent open fusion (5.9 d, P < 0.001). Both groups showed significant improvement in Oswestry Disability Index, neurogenic symptom score, back and leg pain, SF-36 scores at 6 months until 5 years with no significant differences between them. Grade 1 fusion was achieved in 97.5% of both groups at 5 years. The overall complication rate was 20% for the open group and 15% for MIS group (P = 0.774), including 4 cases of adjacent segment disease for each group. Conclusion. MIS TLIF is comparable with open TLIF in terms of midterm clinical outcomes and fusion rates with the additional benefits of less initial postoperative pain, less blood loss, earlier rehabilitation, and shorter hospitalization.
引用
收藏
页码:2049 / 2055
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Vazan, Martin
    Gempt, Jens
    Meyer, Bernhard
    Buchmann, Niels
    Ryang, Yu-Mi
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2017, 159 (06) : 1137 - 1146
  • [2] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of clinical outcomes among obese patients
    Terman, Samuel W.
    Yee, Timothy. J.
    Lau, Darryl
    Khan, Adam A.
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2014, 20 (06) : 644 - 652
  • [3] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kulkarni, Arvind G.
    Bohra, Hussain
    Dhruv, Abhilash
    Sarraf, Abhishek
    Bassi, Anupreet
    Patil, Vishwanath M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2016, 50 (05) : 464 - 472
  • [4] Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Lee, Kong Hwee
    Yue, Wai Mun
    Yeo, William
    Soeharno, Henry
    Tan, Seang Beng
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 21 (11) : 2265 - 2270
  • [5] Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kong Hwee Lee
    Wai Mun Yue
    William Yeo
    Henry Soeharno
    Seang Beng Tan
    European Spine Journal, 2012, 21 : 2265 - 2270
  • [6] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Multilevel: Comparison with Conventional Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
    Lee, Won-chul
    Park, Jeong-Yoon
    Kim, Kyung Hyun
    Kuh, Sung Uk
    Chin, Dong Kyu
    Kim, Keun Su
    Cho, Yong Eun
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 85 : 236 - 243
  • [7] 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)
  • [8] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Obese Patients A Propensity Score-Matched Study
    Quek, Clara X.
    Goh, Graham S.
    Tay, Adriel Y.
    Soh, Reuben Chee Cheong
    SPINE, 2024, 49 (18) : 1294 - 1300
  • [9] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [10] Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Jagtiani, Pemla
    Karabacak, Mert
    Margetis, Konstantinos
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2024, 37 (06): : E225 - E238