Cargando…

Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare intraoperative conditions and clinical results of patients undergoing pre-psoas oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) using navigation or conventional fluoroscopy (C-ARM) techniques. METHODS: Forty-two pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Yue-Hui, White, Ian, Potts, Eric, Mobasser, Jean-Pierre, Chou, Dean
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989845
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568217716149
_version_ 1783268235297161216
author Zhang, Yue-Hui
White, Ian
Potts, Eric
Mobasser, Jean-Pierre
Chou, Dean
author_facet Zhang, Yue-Hui
White, Ian
Potts, Eric
Mobasser, Jean-Pierre
Chou, Dean
author_sort Zhang, Yue-Hui
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare intraoperative conditions and clinical results of patients undergoing pre-psoas oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) using navigation or conventional fluoroscopy (C-ARM) techniques. METHODS: Forty-two patients (22 patients by navigation and 20 by fluoroscopy) underwent the OLIF procedure at 2 medical centers, and records were reviewed. Clinical data was collected and compared between the 2 groups. Patients were followed-up with a range of 6 to 24 months. RESULTS: There were no significant differences on demographic data between groups. The navigation group had zero radiation exposure (RE) to the surgeon and radiation time compared to the C-ARM group, with total RE of 44.59 ± 26.65 mGy and radiation time of 88.30 ± 58.28 seconds (P < .05). The RE to the patient was significantly lower in the O-ARM group (9.38 mGy) compared to the C-ARM group (44.59 ± 26.65 mGy). Operating room time was slightly longer in the navigation group (2.49 ± 1.35 hours) compared to the C-ARM group (2.30 ± 1.17 hours; P > .05), although not statistically significant. No differences were found in estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, surgery-related complications, and outcome scores with an average of 8-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-ARM techniques, using navigation can eliminate RE to surgeon and decrease RE to the patient, and it had no significant effect on operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, or perioperative complications in the patients with OLIF procedure. This study shows that navigation is a safe alternative to fluoroscopy during the OLIF procedure in the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5624381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56243812017-10-06 Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy Zhang, Yue-Hui White, Ian Potts, Eric Mobasser, Jean-Pierre Chou, Dean Global Spine J Original Articles STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare intraoperative conditions and clinical results of patients undergoing pre-psoas oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) using navigation or conventional fluoroscopy (C-ARM) techniques. METHODS: Forty-two patients (22 patients by navigation and 20 by fluoroscopy) underwent the OLIF procedure at 2 medical centers, and records were reviewed. Clinical data was collected and compared between the 2 groups. Patients were followed-up with a range of 6 to 24 months. RESULTS: There were no significant differences on demographic data between groups. The navigation group had zero radiation exposure (RE) to the surgeon and radiation time compared to the C-ARM group, with total RE of 44.59 ± 26.65 mGy and radiation time of 88.30 ± 58.28 seconds (P < .05). The RE to the patient was significantly lower in the O-ARM group (9.38 mGy) compared to the C-ARM group (44.59 ± 26.65 mGy). Operating room time was slightly longer in the navigation group (2.49 ± 1.35 hours) compared to the C-ARM group (2.30 ± 1.17 hours; P > .05), although not statistically significant. No differences were found in estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, surgery-related complications, and outcome scores with an average of 8-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-ARM techniques, using navigation can eliminate RE to surgeon and decrease RE to the patient, and it had no significant effect on operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, or perioperative complications in the patients with OLIF procedure. This study shows that navigation is a safe alternative to fluoroscopy during the OLIF procedure in the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions. SAGE Publications 2017-07-28 2017-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5624381/ /pubmed/28989845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568217716149 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Zhang, Yue-Hui
White, Ian
Potts, Eric
Mobasser, Jean-Pierre
Chou, Dean
Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy
title Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy
title_full Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy
title_fullStr Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy
title_short Comparison Perioperative Factors During Minimally Invasive Pre-Psoas Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine Using Either Navigation or Conventional Fluoroscopy
title_sort comparison perioperative factors during minimally invasive pre-psoas lateral interbody fusion of the lumbar spine using either navigation or conventional fluoroscopy
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989845
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568217716149
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangyuehui comparisonperioperativefactorsduringminimallyinvasiveprepsoaslateralinterbodyfusionofthelumbarspineusingeithernavigationorconventionalfluoroscopy
AT whiteian comparisonperioperativefactorsduringminimallyinvasiveprepsoaslateralinterbodyfusionofthelumbarspineusingeithernavigationorconventionalfluoroscopy
AT pottseric comparisonperioperativefactorsduringminimallyinvasiveprepsoaslateralinterbodyfusionofthelumbarspineusingeithernavigationorconventionalfluoroscopy
AT mobasserjeanpierre comparisonperioperativefactorsduringminimallyinvasiveprepsoaslateralinterbodyfusionofthelumbarspineusingeithernavigationorconventionalfluoroscopy
AT choudean comparisonperioperativefactorsduringminimallyinvasiveprepsoaslateralinterbodyfusionofthelumbarspineusingeithernavigationorconventionalfluoroscopy