Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Results of Mini-Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Indirect Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
10.4184/asj.2018.12.2.356
- Author:
Yutaka KONO
1
,
2
;
Hogaku GEN
;
Yoshio SAKUMA
;
Yasuhide KOSHIKA
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chiba Central Medical Center, Chiba, Japan. k.yutaka96@cb
2. so-net.ne.jp
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Lumbar osteoarthritis;
Spinal stenosis;
Spinal fusion;
Minimally invasive surgery;
Comparative effectiveness
- MeSH:
Asian Continental Ancestry Group;
Back Pain;
Decompression;
Hospitalization;
Humans;
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures;
Orthopedics;
Osteoarthritis, Spine;
Retrospective Studies;
Spinal Canal;
Spinal Fusion;
Spinal Stenosis;
Spondylolisthesis
- From:Asian Spine Journal
2018;12(2):356-364
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PURPOSE: In this study, we compared the postoperative outcomes of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) indirect decompression with that of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There are very few reports examining postoperative results of XLIF and minimally invasive TLIF for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and no reports comparing XLIF and mini-open TLIF. METHODS: Forty patients who underwent 1-level spinal fusion, either by XLIF indirect decompression (X group, 20 patients) or by mini-open TLIF (T group, 20 patients), for treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in this study. Invasiveness of surgery was evaluated on the basis of surgery time, blood loss, hospitalization period, and perioperative complications. The Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), disc angle (DA), disc height (DH), and slipping length (SL) were evaluated before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at 12 months after surgery. Cross-sectional spinal canal area (CSA) was also measured before surgery and at 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of surgery time or hospitalization period; however, X group showed a significant decrease in blood loss (p < 0.001). Serious complications were not observed in either group. In clinical assessment, no significant differences were observed between the groups with regard to the JOABPEQ results. The change in DH at 12 months after surgery increased significantly in the X group (p < 0.05), and the changes in DA and SL were not significantly different between the two groups. The change in CSA was significantly greater in the T group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative clinical results were equally favorable for both procedures; however, in comparison with mini-open TLIF, less blood loss and greater correction of DH were observed in XLIF.
