Effects of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and traditional open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2017.07.013
- VernacularTitle: 机器人引导下微创经椎间孔椎体间融合术和传统开放手术治疗腰椎滑脱症的疗效分析
- Author:
Guanyu CUI
1
;
Wei TIAN
;
Da HE
;
Yonggang XING
;
Bo LIU
;
Qiang YUAN
;
Yongqing WANG
;
Yuqing SUN
Author Information
1. Department of Spinal Surgery, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Fourth Medical College of Peking University, Beijing 100035, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Spondylolysis;
Surgical procedures, minimally invasive;
Robotics;
transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
- From:
Chinese Journal of Surgery
2017;55(7):543-548
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical effects of robot-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open TLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Methods:A total of 41 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis accepted surgical treatment in Department of Spinal Surgery of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital From July 2015 to April 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 cases accepted robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF and 25 accepted traditional open TLIF. The operation time, X-ray radiation exposure time, perioperative bleeding, drainage volume, time of hospitalization, time for pain relief, time for ambulatory recovery, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and complications were compared. T test and χ2 were used to analyze data.
Results:There were no significant difference in gender, age, numbers, degrees, pre-operative VAS and ODI in spondylolisthesis (all P>0.05). Compared with traditional open TLIF group, the robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group had less perioperative bleeding ((187.5±18.4) ml vs. (332.1±23.5) ml), less drainage volume ((103.1±15.6) ml vs. (261.3±19.8) ml), shorter hospitalization ((7.8±1.9) days vs. (10.0±1.6) days), shorter time for pain relief ((2.8±1.0) days vs. (5.2±1.1) days), shorter time for ambulatory recovery ((1.7±0.9) days vs. (2.9±1.3) days) and less VAS of the third day postoperatively (2.2±0.9 vs. 4.2±2.4) (t=2.762-16.738, all P<0.05), but need more operation time ((151.3±12.3) minutes vs. (102.2±7.1) minutes) and more X-ray radiation exposure ((26.1±3.3) seconds vs. (5.5±2.1) seconds) (t=6.125, 15.168, both P<0.01). In both groups ODI was significantly lower in final follow-up than that of the pre-operation (t=12.215, 14.036, P<0.01). Intervertebral disc height of the final follow-up in both groups were significantly larger than that of the preoperation (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (11.8 ± 2.8) mm vs. (7.5 ± 1.9) mm, traditional open TLIF group: (12.7 ± 2.5) mm vs. (7.9±2.0) mm), and so was the lumbar lordosis angle (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (48.7±9.2)°vs. (39.6±7.9)°, traditional open TLIF group: (50.1±10.8)°vs. (41.4±8.8)°), the lordosis angle of the slippage segment (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (18.7±5.6)°vs. (10.9±3.8)°, traditional open TLIF group: (17.6±6.1)°vs.(8.7±3.2)°) (t=4.128-16.738, all P<0.01). Slippage rate of the final follow-up in both groups were significantly smaller than those of the pre-operation (robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group: (5.3±2.3) % vs. (27.8±7.2) %, traditional open TLIF group: (6.6±2.8) % vs. (29.1±9.5) %) (t=11.410, 18.504, both P<0.01). There was no difference of the upper data between two groups (t=0.106-1.227, P>0.05). The results of the post-operative CT showed that the pedicle screws in the robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF group were more precisely placed than traditional open TLIF group (χ2=4.247, P=0.039). The mean follow-up time was 8 months (ranging from 3 to 12 months). There were no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups (χ2=0.366, P=0.545).
Conclusions:In the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, Robot-assisted minimally invasive TLIF can lead to less perioperative bleeding, less post-operative pain, and quicker recovery than traditional open TLIF surgery, but it needs more operation time and radiation exposure.
