Cargando…
Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
PURPOSE: To compare the preliminary postoperative outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with single-segm...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33654422 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S298591 |
_version_ | 1783656137544957952 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Hao Zhou, Chuanli Wang, Chao Zhu, Kai Tu, Qihao Kong, Meng Zhao, Chong Ma, Xuexiao |
author_facet | Zhang, Hao Zhou, Chuanli Wang, Chao Zhu, Kai Tu, Qihao Kong, Meng Zhao, Chong Ma, Xuexiao |
author_sort | Zhang, Hao |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare the preliminary postoperative outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis received Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were enrolled in present study. Perioperative parameters, including operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), interoperative fluoroscopy time, ambulation time and operative complications were recorded, respectively. The results of clinical metrics such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were obtained, respectively. Postoperative fusion rates were assessed by clinical fusion and CT at 12-month after surgery. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the demographic data between the two groups. Compared with MIS-TLIF group, Endo-TLIF group had similar operative time, less intraoperative blood loss and shorter ambulation time but longer duration of X-ray radiation. The postoperative VAS scores of back pain, ODI and JOA score were significantly improved comparing with the preoperative scores in two groups, but the Endo-TLIF group showed more significant improvement in the early follow-up (P < 0.05, respectively). There were no significant differences in terms of the interbody fusion rate between the two groups. Meanwhile, no serious postoperative complications were observed in the study. CONCLUSION: Compared with MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF technique showed relatively faster recovery and better outcomes in terms of early curative effect, especially in 6 months after operation. However, intraoperative repeated fluoroscopy could result in highly cumulative radiation and longer operation time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7910530 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79105302021-03-01 Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Zhang, Hao Zhou, Chuanli Wang, Chao Zhu, Kai Tu, Qihao Kong, Meng Zhao, Chong Ma, Xuexiao Int J Gen Med Original Research PURPOSE: To compare the preliminary postoperative outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis received Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were enrolled in present study. Perioperative parameters, including operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), interoperative fluoroscopy time, ambulation time and operative complications were recorded, respectively. The results of clinical metrics such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were obtained, respectively. Postoperative fusion rates were assessed by clinical fusion and CT at 12-month after surgery. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the demographic data between the two groups. Compared with MIS-TLIF group, Endo-TLIF group had similar operative time, less intraoperative blood loss and shorter ambulation time but longer duration of X-ray radiation. The postoperative VAS scores of back pain, ODI and JOA score were significantly improved comparing with the preoperative scores in two groups, but the Endo-TLIF group showed more significant improvement in the early follow-up (P < 0.05, respectively). There were no significant differences in terms of the interbody fusion rate between the two groups. Meanwhile, no serious postoperative complications were observed in the study. CONCLUSION: Compared with MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF technique showed relatively faster recovery and better outcomes in terms of early curative effect, especially in 6 months after operation. However, intraoperative repeated fluoroscopy could result in highly cumulative radiation and longer operation time. Dove 2021-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7910530/ /pubmed/33654422 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S298591 Text en © 2021 Zhang et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Zhang, Hao Zhou, Chuanli Wang, Chao Zhu, Kai Tu, Qihao Kong, Meng Zhao, Chong Ma, Xuexiao Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
title | Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
title_full | Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
title_fullStr | Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
title_full_unstemmed | Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
title_short | Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis |
title_sort | percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique note and comparison of early outcomes with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910530/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33654422 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S298591 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhanghao percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT zhouchuanli percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT wangchao percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT zhukai percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT tuqihao percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT kongmeng percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT zhaochong percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis AT maxuexiao percutaneousendoscopictransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusiontechniquenoteandcomparisonofearlyoutcomeswithminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspondylolisthesis |