Comparison of the efficacy of fully visualized endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20240407-00196
- VernacularTitle:全可视内镜辅助后路经椎间孔与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗单节段腰椎退行性疾病
- Author:
Longwei LU
1
;
Yao CHEN
;
Jialong XU
;
Junwen GU
;
Xiaoliang LI
;
Hailong ZHANG
;
Peijian TONG
Author Information
1. 嘉兴市秀洲区人民医院（浙江省中医院秀洲分院）骨科，嘉兴 314015
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Lumbar vertebrae;
Video-assisted surgery;
Spinal fusion;
Endoscopic
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2025;45(2):77-85
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PTLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 56 patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases treated at Xiuzhou District People's Hospital between September 2020 and March 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach: the Endo-PTLIF group (24 cases, 11 males and 13 females; mean age: 56.5±8.4 years, range: 43-72 years) and the MIS-TLIF group (32 cases, 10 males and 22 females; mean age: 54.5±10.4 years, range: 37-73 years). Perioperative parameters, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), disc height (DH), and dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) were compared between the two groups.Results:No significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline characteristics, preoperative VAS, ODI, LL, DH, or DSCA ( P>0.05). However, the operative time in the Endo-PTLIF group (173.9±12.3 minutes) was significantly longer than in the MIS-TLIF group (136.5±19.5 minutes, P<0.05). Similarly, the Endo-PTLIF group required more fluoroscopy exposures (15.9±1.8) than the MIS-TLIF group (13.0±1.6, P<0.05). In contrast, intraoperative blood loss in the Endo-PTLIF group (68.9± 12.9 ml) was significantly lower than in the MIS-TLIF group (126.7±35.4 ml, P<0.05). Additionally, the Endo-PTLIF group had a shorter hospital stay [7.00 (6.25, 7.75) days] compared to the MIS-TLIF group [10.00 (9.25, 11.00) days, P<0.05]. At one week and one month postoperatively, the Endo-PTLIF group had significantly lower back pain VAS scores [2.00 (2.00, 3.00) and 2.00 (2.00, 2.00), respectively] and a lower ODI (25.83%±3.83%) compared to the MIS-TLIF group [3.00 (2.25, 4.00), 2.50 (2.00, 3.00), and 30.09%±4.02%, respectively; P<0.05]. Beyond one month postoperatively, there were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores between the groups, and back pain VAS and ODI showed no significant differences after six months ( P>0.05). At the final follow-up, the excellent and good rates, according to MacNab criteria, were 95.8% in the Endo-PTLIF group and 93.8% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). At 12 months postoperatively, both groups showed significant improvements in LL, DH, and DSCA compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05), but there were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The fusion rates were 96% in the Endo-PTLIF group and 94% in the MIS-TLIF group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). Complications included one case of dural tear in the Endo-PTLIF group, and one case of dural tear and one case of incision infection in the MIS-TLIF group. Conclusion:Endo-PTLIF achieves comparable clinical efficacy to MIS-TLIF in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases, with the added advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss and faster postoperative recovery.
