Comparative observational study of surgical outcomes of lumbar foraminal stenosis using minimally invasive microsurgical extraforaminal decompression alone versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective cohort study

被引:24
|
作者
Kim, Ho-Joong [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Jeong, Jin-Hwa [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Cho, Hyeon-Guk [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chang, Bong-Soon [4 ,5 ]
Lee, Choon-Ki [4 ,5 ]
Yeom, Jin S. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Coll Med, Spine Ctr, Songnam 463707, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ Coll Med, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Songnam 463707, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ Bundang Hosp, Songnam 463707, South Korea
[4] Seoul Natl Univ Coll Med, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Seoul 110744, South Korea
[5] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Seoul 110744, South Korea
关键词
Lumbar foraminal stenosis; Microsurgical extraforaminal decompression; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; SPINAL STENOSIS;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-014-3592-4
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
There is no comparative study regarding surgical outcomes between microsurgical extraforaminal decompression (MeFD) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of LFS using two different techniques: MeFD alone or PLIF. For the purposes of this study, a prospectively collected observational cohort study was conducted. Fifty-five patients diagnosed with LFS who were scheduled to undergo spinal surgery were included in this study. According to the chosen surgical technique, patients were assigned to either the MeFD group (n = 25) or the PLIF group (n = 30). The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 1 year after surgery. The baseline patient characteristics and preoperative ODI score, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and Short Form-36 score were not significantly different between the two groups. At 12 months postoperative, the mean ODI score in the MeFD and PLIF groups was 25.68 +/- A 14.49 and 27.20 +/- A 12.56, respectively, and the 95 % confidence interval (-9.76-6.73) was within the predetermined margin of equivalence. The overall ODI score and VAS scores for back and leg pain did not differ significantly over the follow-up assessment time between the two groups. However, the ODI score and VAS scores for back and leg pain improved significantly over time after surgery in both groups. In the MeFD group, revision surgery was required in three patients (12 %). This study demonstrated that MeFD alone and PLIF have equivalent outcomes regarding improvement in disability at 1 year after surgery. However, the higher rate of revision surgery in the MeFD group should emphasize the technically optimal amount of decompression.
引用
收藏
页码:388 / 395
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Intrathecal Versus Intravenous Morphine in Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Fusion A Blinded Randomized Comparative Prospective Study
    Morselli, Fabio Silvio Mario Araimo
    Zuccarini, Francesco
    Caporlingua, Federico
    Scarpa, Ilaria
    Imperiale, Carmela
    Caporlingua, Alessandro
    De Biase, Lorenzo
    Tordiglione, Paolo
    SPINE, 2017, 42 (05) : 281 - 284
  • [22] Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Via an Interlaminar Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Preliminary Retrospective Study
    Li, Yawei
    Dai, Yuliang
    Wang, Bing
    Li, Lei
    Li, Pengzhi
    Xu, Jietao
    Jiang, Bin
    Lu, Guohua
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 144 : E475 - E482
  • [23] 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
  • [24] Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome
    Hartmann, Sebastian
    Lang, Anna
    Lener, Sara
    Abramovic, Anto
    Grassner, Lukas
    Thome, Claudius
    NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW, 2022, 45 (05) : 3417 - 3426
  • [25] New Cage for Posterior Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Study in Vitro and in Vivo
    Hong, Xin
    Wu, Xiao-tao
    Zhuang, Su-yang
    Bao, Jun-ping
    Shi, Rui
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2014, 6 (01) : 47 - 53
  • [26] Surgical Data and Early Postoperative Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Results of a Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Data-Monitored Study
    Pereira, Paulo
    Buzek, David
    Franke, Joerg
    Senker, Wolfgang
    Kosmala, Arkadiusz
    Hubbe, Ulrich
    Manson, Neil
    Rosenberg, Wout
    Assietti, Roberto
    Martens, Frederic
    Brodano, Giovanni Barbanti
    Scheufler, Kai-Michael
    PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (03):
  • [27] Sublaminar decompression and fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in management of lumbar degenerative disorders: a retrospective cohort study
    Khalid Saleh, Mohammed
    Elhewala, Tarek A.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDIC PRACTICE, 2020, 31 (05): : 448 - 456
  • [28] Impact of Antiplatelet Medication Continuation on Surgical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Decompression Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Study
    Sawada, Yuta
    Tamai, Koji
    Toyoda, Hiromitsu
    Kato, Minori
    Suzuki, Akinobu
    Takahashi, Shinji
    Iwamae, Masayoshi
    Okamura, Yuki
    Kobayashi, Yuto
    Nakamura, Hiroaki
    Terai, Hidetomi
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2025,
  • [29] Comparison of the Medium-term Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Discectomy and Fusion with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Song, Chao
    Deng, Zhibo
    Dai, Hanhao
    Zheng, Wu
    Yu, Guoyu
    Wu, Yijing
    Luo, Jun
    Xu, Jie
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2024, 16 (05) : 1042 - 1050
  • [30] 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