Treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus open surgery
10.3760/cma.j.cn114798-20210118-00069
- VernacularTitle:微创通道下和开放单节段腰椎经椎间孔椎间融合术的临床观察
- Author:
Zilong YIN
1
;
Xiaobin WANG
;
Qiwei ZHANG
;
Huachou ZHANG
;
Hongbing XU
;
Qingyun XUE
;
Yaonan ZHANG
;
Liangyuan WEN
;
Qiang WANG
Author Information
1. 北京医院骨科 国家老年医学中心 中国医学科学院老年医学研究院 100730
- Keywords:
Lumbar vertebrae;
Spinal stenosis;
Diskectomy, percutaneous;
Intervertebral disk degeneration
- From:
Chinese Journal of General Practitioners
2021;20(7):767-772
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MTLIF) with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.Methods:Clinical data of 63 patients with single segment lumbar degenerative disease treated in Department of Orthopedics of Beijing Hospital from November 2015 to September 2016 were retrospectively analyzed, among whom 30 cases received MTLIF and 33 cases received OTLIF. The operative time, intraoperative X-ray exposure times, intraoperative blood lose, postoperative drainage,perioperative fever, adjacent segment degeneration, loosening of internal fixation and cage collapse were observed in two groups 4 years after operation, and the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and the leg, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score were compared between two groups.Results:The operation time [(191.6±50.5) min] and radiation exposure times [(15.5±6.4) times] in MTLIF group were significantly more than those in OTLIF group [(105.8±23.1) min, (7.2±1.4)times, t=17.210, t=10.850,all P<0.01]. The intraoperative blood loss [(150.4±70.4) ml], postoperative drainage [(90.4±30.7)ml], VAS score (2.4±0.7) and ODI score (24.5±3.7) 2 weeks after surgery in MTLIF group were significantly lower than those in OTLIF group [(250.7±43.9)ml,(216.3±67.8)ml,(4.5±1.6),(30.6±4.6), t=-12.830, t=-14.070, t=-6.890, t=-5.805,all P<0.01]. There were no significant differences in the incidence of fever [1 case(3.3%) vs. 4 cases(12.1%),χ2=-1.661, P=0.20], VAS score[(1.2±0.7) vs. (1.3±0.6), t=-0.628, P=0.53], ODI score[(14.2±2.7) vs. (14.7±2.5), t=-0.756, P=0.45], fusion rate of Bridwell grade Ⅰ [86.7%(26/30) vs. 84.8%(28/33),χ2=0.042, P=0.84] 1 year after surgery; and the adjacent segment degeneration [0 case(0) vs. 1 case(3.0%),χ2=0.924, P=0.34], internal fixation loosening [1 case(3.3%) vs. 1 case(3.0%),χ2=0.005, P= 0.95] and cage collapse 4 years after surgery [1 case(3.3%) vs. 1case(3.0%),χ2=0.005, P=0.95] between MTLIF group and OTLIF group. Conclusion:Compared with OTLIF, MTLIF has longer operation time and more radiation exposure, but it can achieve full decompression, the same fusion rate, less bleeding, less trauma, faster recovery, fewer complications and satisfactory long-term effect.
