Literature DB >> 31297997

[Comparative study of microendoscope-assisted and conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases].

Jianwen Dong1, Yang Yang1, Zihao Chen1, Mingzhu Yu1, Bin Liu1, Qiyou Wang1, Peigen Xie1, Ruiqiang Chen1, Limin Rong2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the medium and long-term effectiveness of microendoscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases in comparison with conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF.
METHODS: Between November 2008 and March 2013, 53 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative diseases were enrolled. According to the different working channel performed, 28 patients were treated by microendoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF (observation group), while the remaining cases received conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF via Wiltse approach (control group). Preoperative baseline data, including age, gender, body mass index, disease etiology, operated level, the ration for requiring bilateral canal decompression, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) socre of low back pain and leg pain, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, showed no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, postoperative analgesic drug dose, postoperation in-bed time, and perioperative complication incidence were recorded respectively and compared between the two groups. Radiographic evaluation of interbody fusion was performed based on Bridwell grading system at 2 years after operation. VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, and ODI score were assessed before operation, at 2 years after operation, and at last follow-up respectively. Surgical outcome satisfaction was assessed by modified MacNab criteria at last follow-up.
RESULTS: When compared with those in control group, both intraoperative blood loss and postoperative analgesic drug dose were significantly decreased in observation group ( P<0.05); similarly, the operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time were also significantly increased in observation group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference of postoperative in-bed time between the two groups ( t=-0.812, P=0.420). Both groups were followed up 6-10.3 years, with an average of 7.9 years. Regarding perioperative complication, its incidence was 14.3% and 20.0% in observation group and control group, respectively, showing no significant difference between both groups ( χ 2=0.306, P=0.580). Specifically, there were intraspinal hematoma formation in 1 case, incision infection in 1 case, urinary infection in 1 case, transient delirium in 1 case in observation group. By contrast, there were dural tear and cerebrospinal fluid leakage in 1 case, urinary infection in 1 case, pneumonia in 1 case, transient delirium in 2 cases in control group. Bridwell criterion was used to judge the intervertebral fusion at 2 years after operation, the fusion rates of observation group and control group were 92.9% and 92.0%, respectively, showing no significant difference ( χ 2=0.162, P=0.687). At both 2-year postoperatively and last follow-up, the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, JOA score, and ODI score were significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.01), whereas no significant difference between the two groups at either time point was found ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the results of patients' satisfaction with surgery evaluated by modified MacNab criteria, and the excellent and good rates of the observation group and the control group were 96.4% and 92.0%, respectively, showing no significant difference ( χ 2=0.485, P=0.486).
CONCLUSION: The medium and long-term effectiveness of microendoscope-assisted MIS-TLIF are similar to those of conventional tubular retractor-assisted MIS-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases. The former operation has the additional advantages in terms of more clear surgical site visually, less intraoperative blood loss, and reduced postoperative analgesic dose, all of which seem more feasible to clinical teaching.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive spine surgery; lumbar degenerative disease; microendoscope; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31297997      PMCID: PMC8337428          DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.201903112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1002-1892


  20 in total

1.  The Wiltse paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine revisited: an anatomic study.

Authors:  Raphaël Vialle; Philippe Wicart; Olivier Drain; Jean Dubousset; Charles Court
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with instrumentation.

Authors:  Robert E Isaacs; Vinod K Podichetty; Paul Santiago; Faheem A Sandhu; John Spears; Kevin Kelly; Laurie Rice; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2005-08

3.  Unilateral pedicle screw fixation through a tubular retractor via the Wiltse approach compared with conventional bilateral pedicle screw fixation for single-segment degenerative lumbar instability: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Jianwen Dong; Limin Rong; Feng Feng; Bin Liu; Yichun Xu; Qiyou Wang; Ruiqiang Chen; Peigen Xie
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2013-11-15

4.  Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Jae Chul Lee; Hae-Dong Jang; Byung-Joon Shin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Pedro S Silva; Paulo Pereira; Pedro Monteiro; Pedro A Silva; Rui Vaz
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.047

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Mini-open versus conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of paraspinal muscle damage and slip reduction.

Authors:  Takahiro Tsutsumimoto; Mitsuhiko Shimogata; Hiroshi Ohta; Hiromichi Misawa
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion rates performed without posterolateral fusion.

Authors:  Adam J Bevevino; Daniel G Kang; Ronald A Lehman; Gregory S Van Blarcum; Scott C Wagner; David E Gwinn
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 1.961

10.  Hidden and overall haemorrhage following minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Liangming Zhang; Bin Liu; Mao Pang; Peigen Xie; Zihao Chen; Wenbin Wu; Feng Feng; Limin Rong
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2017-07-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.