Literature DB >> 20411281

Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2.

Jian Wang1, Yue Zhou, Zheng Feng Zhang, Chang Qing Li, Wen Jie Zheng, Jie Liu.   

Abstract

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion techniques have only recently been developed. The goals of these procedures are to reduce approach-related soft tissue injury, postoperative pain and disability while allowing the surgery to be conducted in an effective manner. There have been no prospective clinical reports published on the comparison of one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in low-grade spondylolisthesis performed with an independent blade retractor system or a traditional open approach. A prospective clinical study of 85 consecutive cases of degenerative and isthmic lower grade spondylolisthesis treated by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) was done. A total of 85 patients suffering from degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 46) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (n = 39) underwent one-level MiTLIF (n = 42) and OTLIF (n = 43) by two experienced surgeons at one hospital, from June 2006 to March 2008 (minimum 13-month follow-up). The following data were compared between the two groups: the clinical and radiographic results, operative time, blood loss, transfusion needs, X-ray exposure time, postoperative back pain, length of hospital stay, and complications. Clinical outcome was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index. The operative time, clinical and radiographic results were basically identical in both groups. Comparing with the OTLIF group, the MiTLIF group had significantly lesser blood loss, lesser need for transfusion, lesser postoperative back pain, and shorter length of hospital stay. The radiation time was significantly longer in MiTLIF group. One case of nonunion was observed from each group. Minimally invasive TLIF has similar surgical efficacy with the traditional open TLIF in treating one-level lower grade degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. The minimally invasive technique offers several potential advantages including smaller incisions, less tissue trauma and quicker recovery. However, this technique needs longer X-ray exposure time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20411281      PMCID: PMC2989221          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z

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


  16 in total

1.  The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care.

Authors:  R B CLOWARD
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1953-03       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Tzinieris; Elefterios Tsiridis; Victor Kosmopoulos
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates.

Authors:  A D Steffee; D J Sitkowski
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  S C Humphreys; S D Hodges; A G Patwardhan; J C Eck; R B Murphy; L A Covington
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Arthroscopic microdiscectomy of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  P Kambin
Journal:  Clin Sports Med       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.182

7.  The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans.

Authors:  J R Styf; J Willén
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results.

Authors:  James D Schwender; Langston T Holly; David P Rouben; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2005-02

9.  Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome.

Authors:  T Sihvonen; A Herno; L Paljärvi; O Airaksinen; J Partanen; A Tapaninaho
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans.

Authors:  Y Kawaguchi; H Matsui; H Tsuji
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  75 in total

1.  Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Branko Skovrlj; Patrick Belton; Hekmat Zarzour; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-12-18

2.  Expert's comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled "Minimal access bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for high-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis" (by Nasir A. Quraishi and Y. Raja Rampersaud; doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2623-2).

Authors:  Christof Birkenmaier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases.

Authors:  Guangfei Gu; Hailong Zhang; Guoxin Fan; Shisheng He; Xiaotong Meng; Xin Gu; Ning Yan; Xiaofei Guan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Feng Li et al. entitled "Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence" by Nai-Feng Tian, Yao-Sen Wu, Xiao-Lei Zhang, Hua-Zi Xu, Yong-Long Chi, Fang-Min Mao (2013). Eur Spine J, doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2747-z.

Authors:  Nai-Feng Tian; Fang-Min Mao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-18       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Comment on Tian et al.: Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence.

Authors:  Feng Li; Hongjun Huo; Xuejun Yang; Yulong Xiao; Wenhua Xing; Hong Xia
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qu Jin-Tao; Tang Yu; Wang Mei; Tang Xu-Dong; Zhang Tian-Jian; Shi Guo-Hua; Chen Lei; Hu Yue; Wang Zi-Tian; Zhou Yue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): A review of indications, technique, results and complications.

Authors:  Bhavuk Garg; Nishank Mehta
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-01-14

Review 8.  Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christina L Goldstein; Kevin Macwan; Kala Sundararajan; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Does less invasive spine surgery result in increased radiation exposure? A systematic review.

Authors:  Elizabeth Yu; Safdar N Khan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Eleftherios Archavlis; Mario Carvi y Nievas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.