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
  • [21] Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Lin, Lu
    Liu, Xiao-Qin
    Shi, Lei
    Cheng, Si
    Wang, Zhi-Qiang
    Ge, Qi-Jun
    Gao, Ding-Zhi
    Ismail, Amadou Cheffou
    Ke, Zhen-Yong
    Chu, Lei
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2022, 9
  • [22] Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference?
    Cheng, Jason S.
    Park, Priscilla
    Le, Hai
    Reisner, Lori
    Chou, Dean
    Mummaneni, Praveen V.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35 (02)
  • [23] 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
  • [24] Considerations When Contemplating Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Chou, Dean
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 84 (05) : 1205 - 1206
  • [25] 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
  • [26] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience
    Schizas, Constantin
    Tzinieris, Nicolas
    Tsiridis, Elefterios
    Kosmopoulos, Victor
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2009, 33 (06) : 1683 - 1688
  • [27] Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Zhang, Hao
    Zhou, Chuanli
    Wang, Chao
    Zhu, Kai
    Tu, Qihao
    Kong, Meng
    Zhao, Chong
    Ma, Xuexiao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2021, 14 : 549 - 558
  • [28] Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Silva, Pedro S.
    Pereira, Paulo
    Monteiro, Pedro
    Silva, Pedro A.
    Vaz, Rui
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35 (02)
  • [29] Minimally invasive tubular surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kimball, Jon
    Yew, Andrew
    Getachew, Ruth
    Lu, Daniel C.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35
  • [30] Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease
    Zhang, Xuelei
    Zhang, Yu
    Gu, Zuchao
    Li, Guo
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):