Comparison of the effect between minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fu-sion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of recurrent lubar intervertebral disc pro-trusion
10.7683/xxyxyxb.2018.06.008
- VernacularTitle:微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与后路腰椎椎体间融合术治疗复发性腰椎间盘突出症的效果比较
- Author:
Jian-Guo HAN
1
;
Wen LI
;
Hong-Fa PAN
;
Zhi-Wei LI
;
Wei-Qiang LIU
;
Bing-Wu WANG
Author Information
1. 潍坊医学院临床医学院
- Keywords:
lubar intervertebral disc protrusion;
recurrence;
interbody fusion
- From:
Journal of Xinxiang Medical College
2018;35(6):483-486
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the clinical effect of minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fu-sion(MIS-TLIF)and posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF)in the treatment of recurrent lumbar intervertebral disc hernia-tion(LIDH). Methods Twenty-nine patients with recurrent LIDP were selected from May 2014 to May 2016 in Weifang Peo-ple's Hospital and the clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Thirteen patients were given MIS-TLIF(MIS-TLIF group) and sixteen patients were given PLIF(PLIF)group. The operative incision length,intraoperative bleeding volume,postoperative drainage volume,hospitalization time and complications were compared between the two groups. The lumbar function was evalu-ated with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association(JOA)score standard,and the clinical effect was compared between the two groups according to the modified Macnab standard one year after treatment. Results The operativeincision length,intraopera-tive bleeding volume,postoperative drainage volumeand hospitalization time in MIS-TLIF group were significantly less than tho-sein PLIF group (P < 0. 05). The preoperative JOA score of lumbar function in PLIF group and MIS-TLIF group was 7. 9 ± 1. 9 and 8. 0 ± 1. 6 respectively,it was 24. 0 ± 2. 7 and 24. 2 ± 2. 5 respectively at one year after treatment,there was no significant-difference in the JOA score between the two groups before and one year after operation (P > 0. 05). The JOA score atone year after operation was significantly higher than that before operation in the two groups (P < 0. 05). According to the modified Macnab standard one year after treatment,the fineness rate of the patients in PLIF group was 87. 50％(14 / 16),the fineness rate of the patients in the MIS-TLIF group was 84. 62％(11 / 13). There was no significant difference in the fineness rate be-tweenthe two groups (χ2 = 1. 380,P > 0. 05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the MIS-TLIF group and PLIF group was 7. 7％(1/ 13)and 6. 3％ (1/ 16)respectively,there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (χ2 = 0. 020,P > 0. 05). There were 8 cases (61. 5％)with gradeⅠfusion and 5 cases (38. 5％)with gradeⅡfusion in MIS-TLIF group,there were 9(56. 3％)with gradeⅠfusion and 7(43. 8％)with gradeⅡfu-sion,there was no significant difference in the constituent ratio with gradeⅠandⅡfusion between the two groups (χ2 = 0. 080, P >0. 05). Conclusion MIS-TLIF in treatment of recurrent LIDH has the advantages of less incision,less intraoperative bleed-ing,less postoperative drainage and shorter hospitalization time;and the clinical effect of MIS-TLIF is similar to that of PLIF.
