Literature DB >> 28632545

Computer-assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Be Better Than Open Surgery for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Disease.

Wei Tian1, Yun-Feng Xu, Bo Liu, Ya-Jun Liu, Da He, Qiang Yuan, Zhao Lang, Xiao-Guang Han.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: This study was a retrospective review of prospectively collected clinical data.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of computer-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (CAMISS-TLIF) and open TLIF for the treatment of 1-level degenerative lumbar disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive TLIF is becoming increasingly popular; however, the limited space and high rate of hardware complications associated with this method are challenging to surgeons. Computer-assisted navigation has the potential to dynamically show the fine anatomic structures, which could theoretically facilitate minimally invasive spine procedures.
METHODS: Sixty-one patients underwent 1-level TLIF procedures (30, CAMISS-TLIF; 31, open TLIF). The computer-assisted navigation system was used for CAMISS-TLIF, whereas conventional fluoroscopy was used for open TLIF. Demographic, operative, visual analog scale, and Oswestry disability index data were collected. Screw insertion was assessed by computed tomography, and radiologic fusion based on Bridwell grading was evaluated 2 years after surgery by independent investigators.
RESULTS: The CAMISS-TLIF group had significantly less blood loss, postoperative drain, need for transfusion, and initial postoperative back pain; earlier rehabilitation; and shorter postoperative hospitalization than the open TLIF group, whereas CAMISS-TLIF took longer surgical time than open TLIF. However, no significant differences between the 2 groups in visual analog scale scores and Oswestry disability index were observed at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. A total of 93.33% and 73.39% of screws in the CAMISS and open groups, respectively, had no pedicle perforation (P=0.016), and the fusion rate was similar in both groups (P=0.787).
CONCLUSIONS: Computer-assisted navigation facilitated minimally invasive spine surgery-TLIF. CAMISS-TLIF was superior to open TLIF for treating 1-level degenerative lumbar disease, although it required longer operation time in the initial stage. CAMISS-TLIF showed several benefits compared with open TLIF, including less intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and pain; earlier rehabilitation; and shorter postoperative hospitalization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28632545     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000165

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Spine Surg        ISSN: 2380-0186            Impact factor:   1.876


  12 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  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

3.  One-level open vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and advanced meta-analytic assessment of prospective studies with at least two years follow-up.

Authors:  Max Kunadt; Luisa Barleben; Karin Büttner-Janz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.721

4.  Microendoscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: short-term and medium-term outcomes.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Bin Liu; Li-Min Rong; Rui-Qiang Chen; Jian-Wen Dong; Pei-Gen Xie; Liang-Ming Zhang; Feng Feng
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

5.  Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lei Xie; Wen-Jian Wu; Yu Liang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 2.628

6.  Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Chi Heon Kim; Kirk Easley; Jun-Seok Lee; Jae-Young Hong; Michael Virk; Patrick C Hsieh; Sangwook T Yoon
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

7.  Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide.

Authors:  Sara Lener; Christoph Wipplinger; R Nick Hernandez; Ibrahim Hussain; Sertac Kirnaz; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Eliana Kim; Roger Härtl
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28

8.  Computer-assisted, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: One surgeon's learning curve A STROBE-compliant article.

Authors:  Yun-Feng Xu; Xiao-Feng Le; Wei Tian; Bo Liu; Qin Li; Gui-Lin Zhang; Ya-Jun Liu; Qiang Yuan; Da He; Jian-Ping Mao; Bin Xiao; Zhao Lang; Xiao-Guang Han; Pei-Hao Jin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.889

9.  Comparative Prospective Study Reporting Intraoperative Parameters, Pedicle Screw Perforation, and Radiation Exposure in Navigation-Guided versus Non-navigated Fluoroscopy-Assisted Minimal Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Tarun Dusad; Vishal Kundnani; Shumayou Dutta; Ankit Patel; Gaurav Mehta; Mahendra Singh
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-04-16

10.  An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing minimally invasive with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases.

Authors:  Ying-Chun Chen; Lin Zhang; Er-Nan Li; Li-Xiang Ding; Gen-Ai Zhang; Yu Hou; Wei Yuan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.