Literature DB >> 23479028

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

Eleftherios Archavlis1, Mario Carvi y Nievas.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The object of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open surgery in a severely affected subgroup of degenerative spondylolisthetic patients with severe stenosis (SDS) and high-grade facet osteoarthritis (FJO).
METHODS: From January 2009 to February 2010, 49 patients with severe SDS and high-grade FJO were treated using either MIS or open TLIF. Intraoperative and diagnostic data, including perioperative complications and length of hospital stay (LOS), were collected, using retrospective chart review. Surgical short- and long-term outcomes were assessed according to the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain.
RESULTS: Comparing MIS and open surgery, the MIS group had lesser blood loss, significantly lesser need for transfusion (p = 0.02), more rapid improvement of postoperative back pain in the first 6 weeks of follow-up and a shorter LOS. On the other hand, we experienced in the MIS group a longer operative time. The distribution on the postoperative ODI (p = 0.841), VAS leg (p = 0.943) and back pain (p = 0.735) scores after a mean follow-up of 2 years were similar. The overall proportion of complications showed no significant difference between the groups (29% in the MIS group vs. 28% in the open group, p = 0.999).
CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for severe SDS leads to adequate and safe decompression of lumbar stenosis and results in a faster recovery of symptoms and disability in the early postoperative period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23479028      PMCID: PMC3731495          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2732-6

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


  29 in total

1.  Qualitative grading of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac on magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Constantin Schizas; Nicolas Theumann; Alexandre Burn; Rosamond Tansey; Douglas Wardlaw; Francis W Smith; Gerit Kulik
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Improving accuracy and reducing radiation exposure in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Martin James Wood; Richard John Mannion
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2010-05

3.  [Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis].

Authors:  M Quante; H Kesten; A Richter; H Halm
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Prospective analysis of surgical outcomes in patients undergoing decompressive laminectomy and posterior instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gelalis; Christina Arnaoutoglou; Giorgos Christoforou; Marios G Lykissas; Ioannis Batsilas; Theodoros Xenakis
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.511

5.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Eric G Verwiebe; Jordan M Hall; David W Polly; Timothy R Kuklo
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2005-08

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

Authors:  Jian Wang; Yue Zhou; Zheng Feng Zhang; Chang Qing Li; Wen Jie Zheng; Jie Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  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

8.  Operative treatment of the degenerated segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion.

Authors:  T S Whitecloud; J M Davis; P M Olive
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Standard open microdiscectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: results of a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Yu-Mi Ryang; Markus F Oertel; Lothar Mayfrank; Joachim M Gilsbach; Veit Rohde
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.654

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
  20 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

Review 3.  Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Jarred A Hogan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  South Korean degenerative spondylolisthesis patients had surgical treatment at earlier age than Japanese, American, and European patients: a published literature observation.

Authors:  Zoltán Káplár; Yì-Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

5.  Disc space preparation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of minimally invasive and open approaches.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Rihn; Sapan D Gandhi; Patrick Sheehan; Alexander R Vaccaro; Alan S Hilibrand; Todd J Albert; David G Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Highlighting quality issues in "Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications" by Hu et al.

Authors:  Patrick S Murray
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Andrew C Kam; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications.

Authors:  Wei Hu; Jiandong Tang; Xianpei Wu; Li Zhang; Baoyi Ke
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UNILIF): morbidity, clinical and radiological 2-year outcomes of a 66-patient prospective series.

Authors:  H Giorgi; R Prebet; R Andriantsimiavona; P Tropiano; B Blondel; H F Parent
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries.

Authors:  Hitesh N Modi; Utsab Shrestha
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-09-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.