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
  • [41] Modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a trans-multifidus approach: a safe and effective alternative to open-TLIF
    Zhang, Wenzhi
    Li, Xu
    Shang, Xifu
    Xu, Xiang
    Hu, Yefeng
    He, Rui
    Duan, Liqun
    Ling, Xiaodong
    Zhang, Feng
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2015, 10
  • [42] Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database for Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Guan, Jian
    Bisson, Erica F.
    Dailey, Andrew T.
    Hood, Robert S.
    Schmidt, Meic H.
    SPINE, 2016, 41 (07) : E416 - E421
  • [43] Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion
    Gatann, Asrafi Rizki
    Gatam, Luthfi
    Mahadhipta, Harmantya
    Ajiantoro, Ajiantoro
    Luthfi, Omar
    Aprilya, Dina
    ORTHOPEDIC RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2021, 13 : 229 - 239
  • [44] Impact of Obesity on Complication Rates, Clinical Outcomes, and Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Goertz, Lukas
    Stavrinou, Pantelis
    Hamisch, Christina
    Perrech, Moritz
    Czybulka, Dierk-Marko
    Mehdiani, Kaveh
    Timmer, Marco
    Goldbrunner, Roland
    Krischek, Boris
    JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY PART A-CENTRAL EUROPEAN NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 82 (02) : 147 - 153
  • [45] 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
  • [46] Risk factors for intraoperative endplate injury during minimally-invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion
    Kim, Young-Hoon
    Ha, Kee-Yong
    Kim, Ki-Tack
    Chang, Dong-Gune
    Park, Hyung-Youl
    Yoon, Eun-Ji
    Kim, Sang-Il
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2021, 11 (01)
  • [47] A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Singh, Kern
    Nandyala, Sreeharsha V.
    Marquez-Lara, Alejandro
    Fineberg, Steven J.
    Oglesby, Mathew
    Pelton, Miguel A.
    Andersson, Gunnar B.
    Isayeva, Darya
    Jegier, Briana J.
    Phillips, Frank M.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2014, 14 (08) : 1694 - 1701
  • [48] Comparison between Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MISTLIF) for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Chandra, Vemula V. R.
    Prasad, Bodapati C. M.
    Hanu, Tammireddy G.
    Kale, Pavan G.
    NEUROLOGY INDIA, 2022, 70 (01) : 127 - 134
  • [49] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single segmental lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis
    Xue, Jing
    Song, Yueming
    Liu, Hao
    Liu, Limin
    Li, Tao
    Gong, Quan
    JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION, 2022, 35 (03) : 505 - 516
  • [50] 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