Extreme lateral interbody fusion versus traditional posterior lumbar fusion for treatment of lumbar infectious diseases
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20230530-00271
- VernacularTitle:极外侧椎间融合术与传统腰后路椎间融合术治疗腰椎感染性疾病的疗效比较
- Author:
Jiaqi LI
1
;
Yafei XU
;
Weijian WANG
;
Yapeng SUN
;
Fei ZHANG
;
Lei GUO
;
Wei ZHANG
Author Information
1. 河北医科大学第三医院脊柱外科，石家庄 050051
- Keywords:
Lumbar vertebrae;
Infection;
Spinal fusion;
Debridement
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2023;25(11):928-935
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in comparison with traditional posterior lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar infectious diseases.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 30 patients with lumbar infectious disease who had been treated at Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from May 2017 to November 2019. There were 18 males and 12 females with an age of (53.3 ± 12.5) years. According to surgical procedures, the patients were divided into group A of 13 cases subjected to XLIF and group B of 17 cases subjected to posterior radical debridement plus lumbar fusion plus internal fixation. The 2 groups were compared in terms of demographic data like age and gender, intraoperative indexes, intervertebral fusion rate, and complications, as well as visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation.Results:There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the general clinical data before operation, showing comparability ( P>0.05). The operation time in group A was significantly shorter than that in group B [(88.5 ± 13.6) min versus (124.1 ± 15.4) min], and the intraoperative blood loss in group A significantly less than that in group B [(66.9 ± 18.4) mL versus (461.8 ± 150.6) mL] ( P<0.05). The VAS and ODI at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation in both groups were significantly lower than those before operation ( P<0.05). The VAS and ODI at 3 months after surgery in group A [2 (2, 2) points and 15.2% ± 5.0%] were significantly lower than those in group B [3 (2, 3) points and 19.5% ± 6.2%] ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the fusion rate between groups A and B at 12 months after operation (13 versus 16) ( P>0.05). Postoperatively, left thigh numbness and weakness was reported in 1 case in group A while 2 cases of cerebrospinal fluid fistula and 1 case of poor wound healing were observed in group B, showing no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the 2 groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with the traditional posterior lumbar surgery, XLIF demonstrates advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less tissue damage, shorter operation time, faster postoperative recovery in the treatment of lumbar infectious diseases with no obvious intraspinal abscess or nerve compression.
