Literature DB >> 19399538

Perioperative and short-term advantages of mini-open approach for lumbar spinal fusion.

J Rodríguez-Vela1, A Lobo-Escolar, E Joven-Aliaga, A Herrera, J Vicente, E Suñén, A Loste, A Tabuenca.   

Abstract

It has been widely reported a vascular and neurologic damage of the lumbar muscles produced in the classic posterior approach for lumbar spinal fusions. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate a better clinical and functional outcome in the postoperative and short term in patients undergoing minimal invasive surgery ("mini-open") for this lumbar spinal arthrodesis. We designed a prospective study with a 30 individuals cohort randomized in two groups, depending on the approach performed to get a instrumented lumbar circumferential arthrodesis: "classic posterior" (CL group) or "mini-open" approach (MO group). Several clinical and functional parameters were assessed, including blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesic requirements and daily life activities during hospital stay and at the 3-month follow-up. Patients of the "mini-open approach" group had a significant lower blood loss and hospital stay during admission. They also had significant lower analgesic requirements and faster recovery of daily life activities (specially moderate efforts) when compared to the patients of the "classic posterior approach" group. No significant differences were found between two groups in surgery timing, X-rays exposure or sciatic postoperative pain. This study, inline with previous investigations, reinforces the concept of minimizing the muscular lumbar damage with a mini-open approach for a faster and better recovery of patients' disability in the short term. Further investigations are necessary to confirm these findings in the long term, and to verify the achievement of a stable lumbar spinal fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19399538      PMCID: PMC2899516          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1010-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  47 in total

1.  Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation.

Authors:  Robert E Isaacs; Vinod K Podichetty; Paul Santiago; Faheem A Sandhu; John Spears; Kevin Kelly; Laurie Rice; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-08

2.  A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  H M Mayer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R B Keller; D Robson; R A Deyo; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients.

Authors:  T G Mayer; H Vanharanta; R J Gatchel; V Mooney; D Barnes; L Judge; S Smith; A Terry
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  Steven J Atlas; Robert B Keller; Yen A Wu; Richard A Deyo; Daniel E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery.

Authors:  R Gejo; H Matsui; Y Kawaguchi; H Ishihara; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Changes in serum creatine phosphokinase MM isoenzyme after lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Transforaminal interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine: a financial analysis.

Authors:  T S Whitecloud ; W W Roesch; J E Ricciardi
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2001-04

Review 9.  Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome.

Authors:  Christopher M Bono; Casey K Lee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability.

Authors:  Kai-Michael Scheufler; Hildegard Dohmen; Vassilios I Vougioukas
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  23 in total

1.  [Percutaneous techniques in the thoracic and lumbar spine].

Authors:  T R Blattert; S Katscher; C Josten
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screws for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: a prospective trial.

Authors:  Timo Michael Heintel; Andreas Berglehner; Rainer Meffert
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: indications and techniques of a 360°-stabilization.

Authors:  Ulrich Spiegl; J-S Jarvers; C-E Heyde; C Josten
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.693

4.  [Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Diagnostics and therapeutic strategies].

Authors:  C Josten; C Schmidt; U Spiegl
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  Short-Term Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Pedicle Screw with Cortical Bone Trajectory Compared with Conventional Trajectory.

Authors:  Yuji Kasukawa; Naohisa Miyakoshi; Michio Hongo; Yoshinori Ishikawa; Daisuke Kudo; Yoichi Shimada
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-06-08

Review 6.  Incomplete burst fractures of the thoracolumbar spine: a review of literature.

Authors:  U J Spiegl; C Josten; B M Devitt; C-E Heyde
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous posterior fixation of one-level traumatic thoraco-lumbar and lumbar spine fractures.

Authors:  Marco Tinelli; Friederike Töpfer; Michael Kreinest; Stefan Matschke; Paul A Grützner; Arnold J Suda
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-05-16

8.  Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up.

Authors:  Javier Rodríguez-Vela; Antonio Lobo-Escolar; Eduardo Joven; Javier Muñoz-Marín; Antonio Herrera; José Velilla
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive scoliosis surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a retrospective case series of 84 patients.

Authors:  Jae Hyuk Yang; Dong-Gune Chang; Seung Woo Suh; Neelesh Damani; Hoon-Nyun Lee; Jungwook Lim; Frederick Mun
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; José-Antonio Soriano-Sánchez; Xifeng Zhang; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sergio Soriano Solis; José Gabriel Rugeles Ortíz; Carolina Ramírez Martínez; Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar; Kaixuan Liu; Qiang Fu; Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Stefan Hellinger; Álvaro Dowling; Nicholas Prada; Gun Choi; Girish Datar; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.