Cargando…

Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are availabl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lewis, Daniel, Marya, Shivan, Carrasco, Roberto, Sabou, Silviu, Leach, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10622816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37788973
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2022.0448
_version_ 1785130626125398016
author Lewis, Daniel
Marya, Shivan
Carrasco, Roberto
Sabou, Silviu
Leach, John
author_facet Lewis, Daniel
Marya, Shivan
Carrasco, Roberto
Sabou, Silviu
Leach, John
author_sort Lewis, Daniel
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are available, but previous studies comparing lumbar fusion techniques have heterogeneous data, making interpretation challenging. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2018, data from 447 consecutive patients undergoing one/two-level lumbar fusion were analyzed. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bilateral muscle strip or Wiltse approach, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF, and posterolateral fusion only were among the surgical techniques used. Core outcomes measure index (COMI) questionnaires were distributed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively to establish patient self-reported outcome measures. Demographic data (age, gender, and body mass index [BMI]) for each patient were also collected in addition to surgical indication, previous operative history, perioperative outcomes, and complications, and whether later revision surgery was required. Pearson’s chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, repeated measure mixed-effects models, and ordinal logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Postoperative COMI scores improved across all procedures compared with pre-surgery (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between different postoperative COMI scores. Significant predictors of higher postoperative COMI score included higher pretreatment COMI score (p≤0.001), previous surgery (p≤0.04), younger age (p≤0.05), higher BMI (p≤0.005), and the indications of lytic spondylolisthesis (p=0.02) and degenerative disc disease (p<0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF had a significantly shorter post-surgery stay than patients undergoing open PLIF (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between open and minimally invasive techniques. These findings suggest that the main determinant of surgical approach should be surgeon preference and training.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10622816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Korean Society of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106228162023-11-04 Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study Lewis, Daniel Marya, Shivan Carrasco, Roberto Sabou, Silviu Leach, John Asian Spine J Clinical Study STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different lumbar fusion techniques. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Various open and minimally invasive techniques for lumbar fusion are available, but previous studies comparing lumbar fusion techniques have heterogeneous data, making interpretation challenging. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2018, data from 447 consecutive patients undergoing one/two-level lumbar fusion were analyzed. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bilateral muscle strip or Wiltse approach, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF, and posterolateral fusion only were among the surgical techniques used. Core outcomes measure index (COMI) questionnaires were distributed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively to establish patient self-reported outcome measures. Demographic data (age, gender, and body mass index [BMI]) for each patient were also collected in addition to surgical indication, previous operative history, perioperative outcomes, and complications, and whether later revision surgery was required. Pearson’s chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, repeated measure mixed-effects models, and ordinal logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Postoperative COMI scores improved across all procedures compared with pre-surgery (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between different postoperative COMI scores. Significant predictors of higher postoperative COMI score included higher pretreatment COMI score (p≤0.001), previous surgery (p≤0.04), younger age (p≤0.05), higher BMI (p≤0.005), and the indications of lytic spondylolisthesis (p=0.02) and degenerative disc disease (p<0.001). Patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF had a significantly shorter post-surgery stay than patients undergoing open PLIF (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between open and minimally invasive techniques. These findings suggest that the main determinant of surgical approach should be surgeon preference and training. Korean Society of Spine Surgery 2023-10 2023-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10622816/ /pubmed/37788973 http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2022.0448 Text en Copyright © 2023 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Lewis, Daniel
Marya, Shivan
Carrasco, Roberto
Sabou, Silviu
Leach, John
Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study
title Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study
title_full Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study
title_fullStr Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study
title_short Comparative Outcome Data Using Different Techniques for Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Large Single-Center Study
title_sort comparative outcome data using different techniques for posterior lumbar fusion: a large single-center study
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10622816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37788973
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2022.0448
work_keys_str_mv AT lewisdaniel comparativeoutcomedatausingdifferenttechniquesforposteriorlumbarfusionalargesinglecenterstudy
AT maryashivan comparativeoutcomedatausingdifferenttechniquesforposteriorlumbarfusionalargesinglecenterstudy
AT carrascoroberto comparativeoutcomedatausingdifferenttechniquesforposteriorlumbarfusionalargesinglecenterstudy
AT sabousilviu comparativeoutcomedatausingdifferenttechniquesforposteriorlumbarfusionalargesinglecenterstudy
AT leachjohn comparativeoutcomedatausingdifferenttechniquesforposteriorlumbarfusionalargesinglecenterstudy