Literature DB >> 28632558

The Long-term Clinical Effect of Minimal-Invasive TLIF Technique in 1-Segment Lumbar Disease.

Yi-Bing Li1, Xiao-Dong Wang, Hong-Wei Yan, Ding-Jun Hao, Zheng-Hua Liu.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective cohort double-center study.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (miTLIF) using the tunnel technique. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A series of short-term studies have indicated that miTLIF could reduce blood loss and improve clinical results. However, long-term clinical study and magnetic resonance imaging research are still scare.
METHODS: From January 2008 to January 2009, 187 patients with 1-segment lumbar disease requiring intervertebral fusion were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the operative methods. Postoperative low back pain (LBP), postoperative lumbar function, the fusion rate, lower extremity pain relief, variation of lumbar lordosis, and implant failure were assessed. At 48 months postoperation, the cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscle was measured using magnetic resonance imaging.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 54.4±5.9 months. The intermuscular pressure generated by the tunnel in the miTLIF group was lower than that generated in the oTLIF group. Patients in the miTLIF group reported a lower degree of LBP at all timepoints. The ODI scores were similar to the VAS scores. No significant differences were found in fusion rate, lower extremity pain relief, lumbar lordosis, or implant failure rate. A significant difference was found between the 2 groups in postoperative cross-sectional area.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the advantages of miTLIF in reducing postoperative LBP, improving postoperative quality of life and preventing paraspinal muscle atrophy compared with oTLIF, while achieving a similar therapeutic outcome. The lower intermuscular pressure generated by minimally invasive tunnel and subsequent moderate muscle atrophy were presumed to be possible reasons for its superiority.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28632558     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000334

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


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  José Miguel Sousa; Hugo Ribeiro; João Luís Silva; Paulo Nogueira; José Guimarães Consciência
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  A new decompression technique for upper lumbar fracture with neurologic deficit-comparison with traditional open posterior surgery.

Authors:  Bangke Zhang; Fengjin Zhou; Liang Wang; Haibin Wang; Jiayao Jiang; Qunfeng Guo; Xuhua Lu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.