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
  • [21] Open and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Intermediate Results and Complications
    Hey, Hwee Weng Dennis
    Hee, Hwan Tak
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (02) : 185 - 193
  • [22] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ahn, Junyoung
    Tabaraee, Ehsan
    Singh, Kern
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (06): : 222 - 225
  • [23] Ten-Year Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Kwon, Ji-Won
    Park, Yung
    Lee, Byung Ho
    Yoon, So Ra
    Ha, Joong-Won
    Kim, Hyunkyo
    Suk, Kyung-Soo
    Moon, Seong-Hwan
    Kim, Hak-Sun
    Lee, Hwan-Mo
    SPINE, 2022, 47 (11) : 773 - 780
  • [24] Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Khan, Nickalus R.
    Clark, Aaron J.
    Lee, Siang Liao
    Venable, Garrett T.
    Rossi, Nicholas B.
    Foley, Kevin T.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 77 (06) : 847 - 874
  • [25] Obesity Does Not Adversely Affect Longterm Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Matched Cohort Analysis
    Coban, Daniel
    Changoor, Stuart
    Saela, Stephen
    Sinha, Kumar
    Hwang, K.
    Faloon, Michael
    Emami, Arash
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2022, 45 (04) : 203 - 208
  • [26] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity
    Lau, Darryl
    Ziewacz, John
    Park, Paul
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 20 (01) : 80 - 83
  • [27] 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
  • [28] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion
    Stadler, James A., III
    Dandaleh, Nader S.
    Smith, Zachary A.
    Koski, Tyler R.
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 25 (02) : 377 - +
  • [29] Postoperative dysesthesia in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of five cases
    Wang, Honggang
    Zhou, Yue
    Zhang, Zhengfeng
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2016, 25 (05) : 1595 - 1600
  • [30] Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) Versus Traditional Open Approach Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Fried, Tristan B.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    Anderson, D. Greg
    Donnally, Chester J., III
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2022, 35 (02): : 59 - 62