Literature DB >> 35712923

[Comparative study of microscope assisted minimally invasive anterior fusion and mobile microendoscopic discectomy assisted fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases].

Baoshan Xu1, Haiwei Xu1, Yue Liu1, Ning Li1, Hongfeng Jiang1, Lilong Du1, Tao Wang1.   

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of microscope assisted anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion (ALDF) and mobile microendoscopic discectomy assisted lumbar interbody fusion (MMED-LIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.
Methods: A clinical data of 163 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who met the criteria between January 2018 and December 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. Fifty-three cases were treated with microscope assisted ALDF (ALDF group) and 110 cases with MMED-LIF (MMED-LIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, disease type, surgical segments, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, lordosis angle, and spondylolisthesis rate of the patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay of the two groups were recorded. The effectiveness was evaluated by VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI. Postoperative lumbar X-ray films were taken to observe the position of Cage and measure the intervertebral space height, lordosis angle, and spondylolisthesis rate of the patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Results: The operations were successfully completed in both groups. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay in ALDF group were less than those in MMED-LIF group ( P<0.05). The patients in both groups were followed up 12-36 months, with an average of 24 months. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation were lower than those before operation in the two groups, and showed a continuous downward trend, with significant differences between different time points ( P<0.05). There were significant differences between two groups in VAS score of low back pain and ODI ( P<0.05) and no significant difference in VAS score of leg pain ( P>0.05) at each time point. The improvement rates of VAS score of low back pain and ODI in ALDF group were significantly higher than those in MMED-LIF group ( t=7.187, P=0.000; t=2.716, P=0.007), but there was no significant difference in the improvement rate of VAS score of leg pain ( t=0.556, P=0.579). The postoperative lumbar X-ray films showed the significant recovery of the intervertebral space height, lordosis angle, and spondylolisthesis rate at 2 days after operation when compared with preoperation ( P<0.05), and the improvements were maintained until last follow-up ( P>0.05). The improvement rates of intervertebral space height and lordosis angle in ALDF group were significantly higher than those in MMED-LIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the reduction rate of spondylolisthesis between the two groups ( t=1.396, P=0.167). During follow-up, there was no loosening or breakage of the implant and no displacement or sinking of the Cage.
Conclusion: Under appropriate indications, microscope assisted ALDF and MMED-LIF both can achieve good results for lumbar degenerative diseases. Microscope assisted ALDF was superior to MMED-LIF in the improvement of low back pain and function and the recovery of intervertebral space height and lordosis angle.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar degenerative disease; anterior surgery; interbody fusion; microendoscopic discectomy; microscope

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35712923      PMCID: PMC9240834          DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202202039

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


  9 in total

1.  Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Reduction For Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Mobile Microendoscopic Discectomy Technique.

Authors:  Baoshan Xu; Haiwei Xu; Hao Zhang; Xinlong Ma; Yue Liu; Qiang Yang; Hongfeng Jiang; Ning Ji; Ning Li
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.876

2.  90-day Readmission Rates for Single Level Anterior Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion: A Nationwide Readmissions Database Analysis.

Authors:  Christopher J Elia; Varun Arvind; James Brazdzionis; Alexander von Glinski; Benjamin A Schell; Clifford A Pierre; John Ogunlade; Jens R Chapman; Rod J Oskouian
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Long-term reoperation rates and causes for reoperations following lumbar microendoscopic discectomy and decompression: 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Takato Aihara; Atsushi Kojima; Makoto Urushibara; Kenji Endo; Yasunobu Sawaji; Hidekazu Suzuki; Hirosuke Nishimura; Kazuma Murata; Takamitsu Konishi; Kengo Yamamoto
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 1.961

4.  Reasons for revision following stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Austin Q Nguyen; Jackson P Harvey; Krishn Khanna; Bryce A Basques; Garrett K Harada; Frank M Phillips; Kern Singh; Christopher Dewald; Howard S An; Matthew W Colman
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2021-04-30

5.  Risk factors of instrumentation failure and pseudarthrosis after stand-alone L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Antoine Jaeger; David Giber; Claire Bastard; Benjamin Thiebaut; François Roubineau; Charles Henri Flouzat Lachaniette; Arnaud Dubory
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2019-05-31

6.  Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Cement Augmentation Without Posterior Fixation to Treat Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in an Osteopenic Patient-A Surgical Technique.

Authors:  Mathew Cyriac; Justin Kyhos; Uchechi Iweala; Danny Lee; Matthew Mantell; Warren Yu; Joseph R O'Brien
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-15

7.  Standalone titanium/polyetheretherketone interbody cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Clinical and radiological results at 24 months.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Tajrian Amin; Kevin Phan; Darweesh Al Khawaja; Wen Jie Choy; William C H Parr; Vedran Lovric; William R Walsh
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-03-09

8.  Predictors of Spontaneous Restoration of Lumbar Lordosis after Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases.

Authors:  Shuhei Ohyama; Yasuchika Aoki; Masahiro Inoue; Takayuki Nakajima; Yusuke Sato; Atsuya Watanabe; Hiroshi Takahashi; Go Kubota; Arata Nakajima; Junya Saito; Yawara Eguchi; Sumihisa Orita; Koichi Nakagawa; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2021-02-22

Review 9.  Global and Current Research Trends of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy/Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study.

Authors:  Pei-Lin Chu; Tao Wang; Jia-le Zheng; Chong-Qing Xu; Yin-Jie Yan; Qing-Shan Ma; Yin Meng-Chen; Tian Da-Sheng
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.071

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.