Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques?

被引:5
|
作者
Bortz, Cole [1 ]
Alas, Haddy [1 ]
Segreto, Frank [1 ]
Horn, Samantha R. [1 ]
Varlotta, Christopher [1 ]
Brown, Avery E. [1 ]
Pierce, Katherine E. [1 ]
Ge, David H. [1 ]
Vasquez-Montes, Dennis [1 ]
Lafage, Virginie [2 ]
Lafage, Renaud [2 ]
Fischer, Charla R. [1 ]
Gerling, Michael C. [1 ]
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S. [1 ]
Buckland, Aaron J. [1 ]
Sciubba, Daniel M. [3 ]
De La Garza-Ramos, Rafael [4 ]
Passias, Peter G. [1 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Langone Orthoped Hosp, New York, NY 10003 USA
[2] Hosp Special Surg, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Bronx Lebanon Hosp Ctr, New York, NY USA
关键词
minimally invasive surgical procedures; postoperative complications; lumbosacral region; retrospective studies; length of stay; operative time; patient readmission; comorbidity; PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; SPINE SURGERY; OUTCOMES; POSTERIOR; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1177/2192568219867289
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 cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. Objective: To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. Methods: Patients >= 18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. Results: Of the 214 lumbar interbody fusion patients included after propensity score matching, 44 (21%) cases were MIS, and 170 (79%) were open. For MIS patients, there were no significant differences between primary and revision cases in estimated blood loss (EBL; 344 vs 299 cm(3), P = .682); however, primary cases had longer operative times (301 vs 246 minutes, P = .029). There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, readmission, and intraoperative or postoperative complications (all P > .05). For open patients, there were no differences between primary and revision cases in EBL (P > .05), although revisions had longer operative times (331 vs 278 minutes, P = .018) and more postoperative complications (61.7% vs 23.8%, P < .001). MIS revision procedures were shorter than open revisions (182 vs 213 minutes, P = .197) with significantly less EBL (294 vs 965 cm(3), P < .001), shorter inpatient and intensive care unit LOS, and fewer postoperative complications (all P < .05). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.
引用
收藏
页码:619 / 626
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques
    Lee, Michael J.
    Mok, James
    Patel, Pranay
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2018, 26 (04) : 124 - 131
  • [2] Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature
    Joseph, Jacob R.
    Smith, Brandon W.
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2015, 39 (04)
  • [3] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Kim, Chi Heon
    Easley, Kirk
    Lee, Jun-Seok
    Hong, Jae-Young
    Virk, Michael
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    Yoon, Sangwook T.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 10 : 143S - 150S
  • [4] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Review of Techniques and Outcomes
    Karikari, Isaac O.
    Isaacs, Robert E.
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (26) : S294 - S301
  • [5] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Hoffmann, Christoph-Heinrich
    Kandziora, Frank
    OPERATIVE ORTHOPADIE UND TRAUMATOLOGIE, 2020, 32 (03): : 180 - 191
  • [6] Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Xie Lei
    Wu WenJian
    Liang Yu
    中华医学杂志英文版, 2016, 129 (16) : 1969 - 1986
  • [7] 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 - +
  • [8] 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
  • [9] 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
  • [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