Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis

被引:10
|
作者
Yao, Yu-Cheng [1 ]
Lin, Hsi-Hsien [1 ]
Chou, Po-Hsin [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Shih-Tien [1 ,2 ]
Chang, Ming-Chau [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Orthoped & Traumatol, 201,Sect 2,Shih Pai Rd, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
TLIF; MIS; Bone graft area; Endplate preparation; Fusion rate; Clinical outcome; POSTERIOR; COMPLICATIONS; CAGES; PLIF;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-019-06002-4
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose We aimed to quantify the interbody bone graft area following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) and investigate their correlations with rates of fusion, complications, and clinical outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing TLIF of 1 or 2 levels between October 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively included. Fusion and bone graft areas were assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 6 months postoperatively. The bone graft area ratio was defined as the bone graft area divided by the average endplate area. The distributions of bone graft area within the discs were also recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires. Results In total, 77 disc levels in 57 patients were analyzed. The fusion rate was 79.1% in the open group and 82.4% in the MIS group (p = 0.718). Clinical outcomes of both groups improved significantly. Changes in VAS and ODI scores at 12 months postoperatively were comparable between groups. Bone graft area ratio was not significantly different between the two groups (open, 38 +/- 10.8%; MIS, 38.1 +/- 9.0%, p = 0.977). Analysis of bone graft distribution revealed that the contralateral-dorsal part of the disc had the lowest bone graft area. The bone graft area ratio was significantly higher in the solid union group (39.2 +/- 10.4%) than in the non-solid union group (33.5 +/- 6.4%, p = 0.048). Conclusions The fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF. [GRAPHICS] .
引用
收藏
页码:2095 / 2102
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis
    Yu-Cheng Yao
    Hsi-Hsien Lin
    Po-Hsin Chou
    Shih-Tien Wang
    Ming-Chau Chang
    European Spine Journal, 2019, 28 : 2095 - 2102
  • [2] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Hoffmann, Christoph-Heinrich
    Kandziora, Frank
    OPERATIVE ORTHOPADIE UND TRAUMATOLOGIE, 2020, 32 (03): : 180 - 191
  • [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] 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
  • [5] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie, Lei
    Wu, Wen-Jian
    Liang, Yu
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - +
  • [6] Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Djurasovic, Mladen
    Gum, Jeffrey L.
    Crawford, Charles H., III
    Owens, Kirk, II
    Brown, Morgan
    Steele, Portia
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2020, 32 (01) : 31 - 35
  • [7] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Arvind G. Kulkarni
    Hussain Bohra
    Abhilash Dhruv
    Abhishek Sarraf
    Anupreet Bassi
    Vishwanath M. Patil
    Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2016, 50 : 464 - 472
  • [8] 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
  • [9] Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
    Hu, Xijian
    Yan, Lei
    Jin, Xinjie
    Liu, Haifeng
    Chai, Jing
    Zhao, Bin
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 14 (01) : 295 - 305
  • [10] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases
    Fan Shunwu
    Zhao Xing
    Zhao Fengdong
    Fang Xiangqian
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (17) : 1615 - 1620