Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis

被引:10
|
作者
Yao, Yu-Cheng [1 ]
Lin, Hsi-Hsien [1 ]
Chou, Po-Hsin [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Shih-Tien [1 ,2 ]
Chang, Ming-Chau [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Orthoped & Traumatol, 201,Sect 2,Shih Pai Rd, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
TLIF; MIS; Bone graft area; Endplate preparation; Fusion rate; Clinical outcome; POSTERIOR; COMPLICATIONS; CAGES; PLIF;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-019-06002-4
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose We aimed to quantify the interbody bone graft area following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) and investigate their correlations with rates of fusion, complications, and clinical outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing TLIF of 1 or 2 levels between October 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively included. Fusion and bone graft areas were assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 6 months postoperatively. The bone graft area ratio was defined as the bone graft area divided by the average endplate area. The distributions of bone graft area within the discs were also recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires. Results In total, 77 disc levels in 57 patients were analyzed. The fusion rate was 79.1% in the open group and 82.4% in the MIS group (p = 0.718). Clinical outcomes of both groups improved significantly. Changes in VAS and ODI scores at 12 months postoperatively were comparable between groups. Bone graft area ratio was not significantly different between the two groups (open, 38 +/- 10.8%; MIS, 38.1 +/- 9.0%, p = 0.977). Analysis of bone graft distribution revealed that the contralateral-dorsal part of the disc had the lowest bone graft area. The bone graft area ratio was significantly higher in the solid union group (39.2 +/- 10.4%) than in the non-solid union group (33.5 +/- 6.4%, p = 0.048). Conclusions The fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF. [GRAPHICS] .
引用
收藏
页码:2095 / 2102
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Biomechanical evaluation of Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis
    Li, Jia-Rui
    Yan, Yang
    Wu, Xiao-Gang
    He, Li-Ming
    Feng, Hao-Yu
    COMPUTER METHODS IN BIOMECHANICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2024, 27 (03) : 285 - 295
  • [42] Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices
    McMordie, Joseph H.
    Schmidt, Kyle P.
    Gard, Andrew P.
    Gillis, Christopher C.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 86 (02) : E147 - E155
  • [43] Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Zhao, Jinqiu
    Zhang, Shujun
    Li, Xiaosong
    He, Bin
    Ou, Yunsheng
    Jiang, Dianming
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2018, 24 : 8693 - 8698
  • [44] Minimally-Invasive midline posterior interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screws compares favorably to traditional open transforaminal interbody fusion
    Crawford, Charles H., III
    Owens, Roger K., II
    Djurasovic, Mladen
    Gum, Jeffrey L.
    Dimar, John R., II
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    HELIYON, 2019, 5 (09)
  • [45] Comparison of Outcomes Between Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Study
    Xu, Hongyao
    Yu, Lei
    Xiao, Bing
    Zhao, Hong
    Gu, Xin
    Gao, Zengxin
    Wang, Weiheng
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 183 : E98 - E108
  • [46] Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Lin, Lu
    Liu, Xiao-Qin
    Shi, Lei
    Cheng, Si
    Wang, Zhi-Qiang
    Ge, Qi-Jun
    Gao, Ding-Zhi
    Ismail, Amadou Cheffou
    Ke, Zhen-Yong
    Chu, Lei
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2022, 9
  • [47] Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Gao, Quan-You
    Wei, Fei-Long
    Li, Tian
    Zhu, Kai-Long
    Du, Ming-Rui
    Heng, Wei
    Yang, Fan
    Gao, Hao-Ran
    Qian, Ji-Xian
    Zhou, Cheng-Pei
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 9
  • [48] Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Droeghaag, Ruud
    Hermans, Sem M. M.
    Caelers, Inge J. M. H.
    Evers, Silvia M. A. A.
    van Hemert, Wouter L. W.
    van Santbrink, Henk
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 21 (06): : 945 - 954
  • [49] Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Lee, Kong Hwee
    Yue, Wai Mun
    Yeo, William
    Soeharno, Henry
    Tan, Seang Beng
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2012, 21 (11) : 2265 - 2270
  • [50] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study
    DiGiorgio, Anthony Michael
    Tender, Gabriel Claudiu
    NEUROSURGERY, 2017, 64 : 263 - 264