Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome

被引:10
|
作者
Hartmann, Sebastian [1 ]
Lang, Anna [1 ]
Lener, Sara [1 ]
Abramovic, Anto [1 ]
Grassner, Lukas [1 ]
Thome, Claudius [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Neurosurg, Anichstr 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
关键词
MIS-TLIF; MIS techniques; Spondylolisthesis; VERBAL RATING-SCALES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALES; PAIN INTENSITY; QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; SPINE SURGERY; BACK-PAIN; POSTERIOR; PERFORMANCE; INFECTION;
D O I
10.1007/s10143-022-01845-w
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompression may contradict MIS techniques. In order to detect differences between both techniques in the short-term, a prospective, controlled study was conducted. Thirty-eight patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease were included in this prospective, controlled study (15 MIS-TLIF group vs. 23 O-TLIF group) after failed conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively, on the first, third, and sixth postoperative day as well as after 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Outcome parameters included blood loss, duration of surgery, pre- and postoperative pain (numeric rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), functionality (Timed Up and Go test [TUG]), disability (Oswestry Disability index [ODI]), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Intraoperative blood loss (IBL) as well as postoperative blood loss (PBL) was significantly higher in the O-TLIF group ([IBL O-TLIF 528 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 213 ml, p = 0.001], [PBL O-TLIF 322 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 30 ml, p = 0.004]). The O-TLIF cohort showed significantly less leg pain postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group ([NRS leg 3rd postoperative day, p = 0.027], [VAS leg 12 weeks post-op, p = 0.02]). The MIS group showed a significantly better improvement in the overall ODI (40.8 +/- 13 vs. 56.0 +/- 16; p = 0.05). After 3 months in the short-term follow-up, the MIS procedure tends to have better results in terms of patient-reported quality of life. MIS-TLIF offers perioperative advantages but may carry the risk of increased nerve root manipulation with consecutive higher radicular pain, which may be related to the learning curve of the procedure.
引用
收藏
页码:3417 / 3426
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
    Sebastian Hartmann
    Anna Lang
    Sara Lener
    Anto Abramovic
    Lukas Grassner
    Claudius Thomé
    Neurosurgical Review, 2022, 45 : 3417 - 3426
  • [2] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study
    DiGiorgio, Anthony Michael
    Tender, Gabriel Claudiu
    NEUROSURGERY, 2017, 64 : 263 - 264
  • [3] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Kim, Chi Heon
    Easley, Kirk
    Lee, Jun-Seok
    Hong, Jae-Young
    Virk, Michael
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    Yoon, Sangwook T.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 10 : 143S - 150S
  • [4] Standard versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study
    Serban, Daniel
    Calina, Niki
    Tender, Gabriel
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 2017
  • [5] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Vazan, Martin
    Gempt, Jens
    Meyer, Bernhard
    Buchmann, Niels
    Ryang, Yu-Mi
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2017, 159 (06) : 1137 - 1146
  • [6] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [7] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kulkarni, Arvind G.
    Bohra, Hussain
    Dhruv, Abhilash
    Sarraf, Abhishek
    Bassi, Anupreet
    Patil, Vishwanath M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2016, 50 (05) : 464 - 472
  • [8] Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Arvind G. Kulkarni
    Hussain Bohra
    Abhilash Dhruv
    Abhishek Sarraf
    Anupreet Bassi
    Vishwanath M. Patil
    Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2016, 50 : 464 - 472
  • [9] Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Jagtiani, Pemla
    Karabacak, Mert
    Margetis, Konstantinos
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2024, 37 (06): : E225 - E238
  • [10] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques
    Lee, Michael J.
    Mok, James
    Patel, Pranay
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2018, 26 (04) : 124 - 131