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
  • [31] The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Lawton, C. D.
    Smith, Z. A.
    Barnawi, A.
    Fessler, R. G.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL SCIENCES, 2011, 55 (03) : 259 - 264
  • [32] A comparison of modern-era anterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the lumbosacral junction
    Farber, S. Harrison
    Dugan, Robert K.
    White, Michael D.
    Walker, Corey T.
    O'Neill, Luke K.
    Alan, Nima
    Zhou, James J.
    Turner, Jay D.
    Tumialan, Luis M.
    Uribe, Juan S.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2023, 39 (06) : 785 - 792
  • [33] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Outpatient Setting
    Emami, Arash
    Faloon, Michael
    Issa, Kimona
    Shafa, Eiman
    Pourtaheri, Sina
    Sinha, Kumar
    Hwang, Ki S.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2016, 39 (06) : E1218 - E1222
  • [34] Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices
    McMordie, Joseph H.
    Schmidt, Kyle P.
    Gard, Andrew P.
    Gillis, Christopher C.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 86 (02) : E147 - E155
  • [35] Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Gao, Quan-You
    Wei, Fei-Long
    Li, Tian
    Zhu, Kai-Long
    Du, Ming-Rui
    Heng, Wei
    Yang, Fan
    Gao, Hao-Ran
    Qian, Ji-Xian
    Zhou, Cheng-Pei
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 9
  • [36] Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review
    Carlson, Brandon B.
    Saville, Philip
    Dowdell, James
    Goto, Rie
    Vaishnav, Avani
    Gang, Catherine Himo
    McAnany, Steven
    Albert, Todd J.
    Qureshi, Sheeraz
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 19 (05) : 951 - 958
  • [37] Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Droeghaag, Ruud
    Hermans, Sem M. M.
    Caelers, Inge J. M. H.
    Evers, Silvia M. A. A.
    van Hemert, Wouter L. W.
    van Santbrink, Henk
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 21 (06) : 945 - 954
  • [38] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis
    Zhang, Qing-Yi
    Tan, Jie
    Huang, Kai
    Xie, Hui-Qi
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2021, 22 (01)
  • [39] Patient Perceptions of Iliac Crest Bone Grafting in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Haws, Brittany E.
    Kheche, Benjamin
    Patel, Dil, V
    Cardinal, Kaitlyn L.
    Ganda, Jordan A.
    Singh, Kern
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2019, 32 (10): : 430 - 434
  • [40] Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Han, Hao
    Song, Yifan
    Li, Yiming
    Zhou, Hengcai
    Fu, Yufei
    Li, Jie
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2023, 18 (01)