Comparison of clinical outcome of two transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions for single-level degenerative lumbar disease
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-8050.2015.06.010
- VernacularTitle:两种经椎间孔椎体间融合治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病的疗效比较
- Author:
Xinyu LIU
;
Suomao YUAN
;
Yonghao TIAN
;
Yanping ZHENG
;
Lianlei WANG
;
Jianmin LI
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Lumbar vertebrae;
Neurodegenerative diseases;
Surgical procedures,minimally invasive
- From:
Chinese Journal of Trauma
2015;31(6):507-511
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the clinical outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) and Wiltse-approach TLIF (W-TLIF) in treating single-level degenerative lumbar disease.Methods A retrospective review was performed on the 57 patients with single-level degenerative lumbar disorder managed via M-TLIF (n =27) and W-TLIF (n =30) from December 2009 to December 2010.In M-TLIF group degeneration at the L4-5 disc were noted in 11 cases and at the L5-S1 disc in 16 cases.And 19 cases were diagnosed with lumbar isthmus spondylolisthesis (17 with Grade Ⅰ spondylolisthesis and 2 with Grade Ⅱ spondylolisthesis),4 lumbar spinal stenosis and instability,2 lumbar disc herniation combined with huge posterior osteophytes,1 recurrent lumbar disc herniation after lumbar fenestration,and 1 recurrent lumbar spinal stenosis after decompression.In W-TLIF group degeneration at L4～5 disc were noted in 12 cases and at the L5-S1 disc in 18 cases.There were 19 cases diagnosed with lumbar isthmus spondylolisthesis (18 with Grade Ⅰ spondylolisthesis and 1 with Grade Ⅱ spondylolisthesis),3 with lumbar disc herniation,and 8 with lumbar spinal stenosis.Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to measure low back and leg pain.Modified Brantigan score was used to assess lumbar interbody fusion.Results Operative time was not significantly different between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).Incision length and mean blood loss were (5.1 ± 0.7) cm and (90.1 ± 10.5) ml in M-TLIF group,but were (6.9 ± 1.0)cm and (155.3 ±21.2)ml in W-TLIF group (P＜0.05).At postoperative 1 and 3 days VAS in M-TLIF group was (2.1 ± 0.5) points and (1.0 ± 0.1) points respectively,but in W-TLIF group was (3.6 ± 0.1) points and (2.4 ± 1.0) points respectively (P ＜ 0.05).Intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy frequencies were (46 ± 9) times in M-TLIF group and (7 ± 2) times in W-TLIF group (P ＜ 0.05).Mean period of follow-up was 26.7 months (range,24-36 months).At final follow-up,JOA score,VAS for leg pain and lumbar interbody fusion rate revealed no significant differences between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05),but VAS for lumbar pain was (1.0 ± 0.2) points in M-TLIF group versus (1.9 ± 0.3) points in W-TLIF group (P ＜0.05).Twenty-four cases (89％) had Brantigan score of 3 or over in M-TLIF group and 27 cases (90％) in W-TLIF group,indicating a similar interbody fusion rate (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Both lumbar fusion methods are effective in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.M-TLIF lumbar fusion results in small amount of bleeding,small incision and significantly improved lower back pain as compared with W-TLIF,but W-TLIF involves less exposure to the X-rays.
