Literature DB >> 23963015

Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study.

Chusheng Seng1, Mashfiqul A Siddiqui, Kenneth P L Wong, Karen Zhang, William Yeo, Seang Beng Tan, Wai-Mun Yue.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.
OBJECTIVE: To compare midterm clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Open TLIF is a proven technique to achieve fusion in symptomatic spinal deformities and instabilities. The possible advantages of MIS TLIF include reduced blood loss, less pain, and shorter hospitalization. To date, there is no published data comparing their midterm outcomes.
METHODS: From 2004-2007, 40 cases of open TLIF were matched paired with 40 cases of MIS TLIF for age, sex, body mass index, and the levels on which the spine was operated. Oswestry Disability Index, neurogenic symptom score, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and visual analogue scale scores for back and leg pain were obtained before surgery, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. Fusion rates were assessed using Bridwell classification.
RESULTS: Fluoroscopic time (MIS: 55.2 s, open: 16.4 s, P < 0.001) was longer in MIS cases. Operative time (MIS: 185 min, open: 166 min, P = 0.085) was not significantly longer in MIS cases. MIS had less blood loss (127 mL) versus open (405 mL, P < 0.001) procedures. Morphine use for MIS cases (8.5 mg) was less compared with open (24.2 mg, P = 0.006). Patients who underwent MIS (1.5 d) ambulated earlier than those who underwent open fusion (3 d, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent MIS (3.6 d) had shorter hospitalization than those who underwent open fusion (5.9 d, P < 0.001). Both groups showed significant improvement in Oswestry Disability Index, neurogenic symptom score, back and leg pain, SF-36 scores at 6 months until 5 years with no significant differences between them. Grade 1 fusion was achieved in 97.5% of both groups at 5 years. The overall complication rate was 20% for the open group and 15% for MIS group (P = 0.774), including 4 cases of adjacent segment disease for each group.
CONCLUSION: MIS TLIF is comparable with open TLIF in terms of midterm clinical outcomes and fusion rates with the additional benefits of less initial postoperative pain, less blood loss, earlier rehabilitation, and shorter hospitalization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23963015     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a8212d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  74 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

Review 2.  Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Branko Skovrlj; Jeffrey Gilligan; Holt S Cutler; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Letter to the editor: Disc space preparation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of minimally invasive and open approaches.

Authors:  Changkun Zheng; Jian-Jun Wu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  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

5.  Learning curve and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jin Yang; Chuan Guo; Qingquan Kong; Bin Zhang; Yu Wang; Lifeng Zhang; Hao Wu; Zhiyu Peng; Yuqing Yan; Dongfeng Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  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 7.  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

Review 8.  Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gun Keorochana; Kitipong Setrkraising; Patarawan Woratanarat; Alisara Arirachakaran; Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-12-24       Impact factor: 3.042

9.  An awake, minimally-invasive, fully-endoscopic surgical technique for treating lumbar radiculopathy secondary to heterotopic foraminal bone formation after a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with BMP: technical note.

Authors:  Albert Edward Telfeian
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03

10.  Is a drain tube necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery?

Authors:  Pei-I Hung; Ming-Chau Chang; Po-Hsin Chou; Hsi-Hsien Lin; Shih-Tien Wang; Chien-Lin Liu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.