Comparative Study of Laparoscopic L5-S1 Fusion versus Open Mini-Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
- Author:
Sang Ki CHUNG
1
;
Sang Ho LEE
;
Sang Rak LIM
Author Information
1. Department of General Surgery, Wooridul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Laparoscopic ALIF;
L5-S1 fusion;
Carbon cage
- MeSH:
Carbon;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Incidence;
Length of Stay;
Operative Time;
Patient Satisfaction;
Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive;
Transplants;
Visual Analog Scale
- From:Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
2003;33(2):154-159
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of the laparoscopic L5-S1 fusion, its perioperative parameters and long-term outcome are compared with those of open anterior surgical approach. METHODS: Data of 54 consecutive patients who underwent anterior approach for L5-S1 fusion either by laparoscopic or open mini-anterior lumbar interbody fusion(ALIF) from 1997 to 1999 were analyzed. Among them, 47 cases were available with more than 2-years follow-up data. In all cases, carbon cage and autologous bone graft were used. RESULTS: Twenty five patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and twenty two a open mini-ALIF. Three laparoscopic procedures were converted to open ones. For perioperative parameter, only the operative time was statistically different(p=0.001) while length of postoperative hospital stay and blood loss were not. The incidence of operative complication was three in laparoscopic group and two in open mini-ALIF group. After the follow-up of at least two years, the two groups showed no statistical difference in visual analog scale for pain, Oswestry disability index, and patient satisfaction index. The fusion rate was 91% in each group. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that laparoscopic ALIF has similar effectiveness and safety with open mini-ALIF. However, the advantage of laparoscopic approach as a minimally invasive surgery should be reconsidered because no objective additional benefit was found.
