Masayoshi Fukushima1,2, Nozomu Ohtomo2,3,4, Michita Noma1,2, Yudai Kumanomido1,2, Hiroyuki Nakarai2,3,5, Keiichiro Tozawa2,3,6, Yuichi Yoshida2,4, Ryuji Sakamoto2,3, Junya Miyahara2,3,4, Masato Anno1,2, Naohiro Kawamura2,4, Akiro Higashikawa2,5, Yujiro Takeshita2,6, Hirohiko Inanami2,7, Sakae Tanaka3, Yasushi Oshima2,3. 1. Spine Center, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo 105-8470, Japan. 2. University of Tokyo Spine Group (UTSG), Tokyo 113-8655, Japan. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan. 4. Department of Spine and Orthopedic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo 150-8935, Japan. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety Kanto Rosai Hospital, Kanagawa 211-8510, Japan. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Yokohama Rosai Hospital, Kanagawa 222-0036, Japan. 7. Inanami Spine and Joint Hospital, Tokyo 140-0002, Japan.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.
Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method.
Authors: Finn B Christensen; Ebbe S Hansen; Søren P Eiskjaer; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Pavel Neumann; Bent Niedermann; Cody E Bünger Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Péter Banczerowski; Gábor Czigléczki; Zoltán Papp; Róbert Veres; Harry Zvi Rappaport; János Vajda Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Manuel Castro-Menéndez; Jose A Bravo-Ricoy; Roberto Casal-Moro; Moisés Hernández-Blanco; Francisco J Jorge-Barreiro Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.654