Weerasak Singhatanadgige1,2, Hathaiphoom Chamadol1, Teerachat Tanasansomboon1,2, Daniel G Kang3, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol1,2, Worawat Limthongkul4,2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Center of Excellence in Biomechanics and Innovative Spine Surgery, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Washington, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand dr.worawat@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective procedure for lumbar spine diseases. The procedure can be done using a surgical microscope (SM) or surgical loupes (SL) magnification. However, there are no studies that compared outcomes between using these 2 magnifying devices in the MIS-TLIF procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, perioperative complications, and radiographic parameters of MIS-TLIF using SM compared with SL magnification. METHODS: We included all patients undergoing 1-level MIS-TLIF between January 2017 and December 2019. Type of magnification (SM vs SL), operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, cross-sectional area of the spinal canal, and fusion rates were analyzed. Clinical outcomes measurement using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients had underwent MIS-TLIF (SM group: 62; SL group: 38). Operative time (SM: 182.7 ± 41.5 vs SL: 165.6 ± 32.6 minutes, P = 0.043) was significantly shorter in the SL group, with a mean difference of 17.2 minutes and a 10.4% increase in operative time between SL and SM. Blood loss (SM: 187.4 ± 176.4 vs SL: 215.6 ± 99.4 mL, P = 0.36) was not different between groups, with a mean difference of 28.2 mL. Both the SM group and SL group demonstrated no significant differences in improvement from baseline in VAS back, VAS legs, ODI score, and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal. There was also no significant difference in complication rates and fusion rates between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no difference between intraoperative use of SL compared with SM in clinical outcomes through the 12-month follow-up timepoint. However, the use of SM resulted in an increased average operative time of 17 minutes compared with the SL group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoperative use of SM and SL magnification in MIS-TLIF provides similar outcomes except prolonged operative time in the SM group. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective procedure for lumbar spine diseases. The procedure can be done using a surgical microscope (SM) or surgical loupes (SL) magnification. However, there are no studies that compared outcomes between using these 2 magnifying devices in the MIS-TLIF procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, perioperative complications, and radiographic parameters of MIS-TLIF using SM compared with SL magnification. METHODS: We included all patients undergoing 1-level MIS-TLIF between January 2017 and December 2019. Type of magnification (SM vs SL), operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, cross-sectional area of the spinal canal, and fusion rates were analyzed. Clinical outcomes measurement using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients had underwent MIS-TLIF (SM group: 62; SL group: 38). Operative time (SM: 182.7 ± 41.5 vs SL: 165.6 ± 32.6 minutes, P = 0.043) was significantly shorter in the SL group, with a mean difference of 17.2 minutes and a 10.4% increase in operative time between SL and SM. Blood loss (SM: 187.4 ± 176.4 vs SL: 215.6 ± 99.4 mL, P = 0.36) was not different between groups, with a mean difference of 28.2 mL. Both the SM group and SL group demonstrated no significant differences in improvement from baseline in VAS back, VAS legs, ODI score, and cross-sectional area of the spinal canal. There was also no significant difference in complication rates and fusion rates between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no difference between intraoperative use of SL compared with SM in clinical outcomes through the 12-month follow-up timepoint. However, the use of SM resulted in an increased average operative time of 17 minutes compared with the SL group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoperative use of SM and SL magnification in MIS-TLIF provides similar outcomes except prolonged operative time in the SM group. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Authors: Robert J Kroeze; Harm C A Graat; Winand J Pluymakers; Louis N Marting; Martijn van Dijk; Cees F van Dijke; Anton H Vd Klis; Steven J Verberne; Albert J de Gruyter; Olivier P P Temmerman Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Bryce A Basques; Nicholas S Golinvaux; Daniel D Bohl; Alem Yacob; Jason O Toy; Arya G Varthi; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468